StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Warspite bugs the hell out of me. Maneuvers fantastically, myopic range (for a BB, at least). This for a ship of notoriously poor maneuverability who scored one of the longest-range gunnery hits ever recorded IRL.

On the upside, I've noticed much shorter queue times and loading sequences, along with slightly better lag and stability. Could just be me, but I get the impression they're working on those crucial things between actual headline patches.

They're adding the Montana? Is this the interwar-period ship from the 20's or the one that was supposed to come after the Iowas? If it's the latter, then that thing was a monster. I'd love to see one of those in action. Although the new Montanas were never actually built...has WoW released ships that were never build or only actual completed ships?

Venator wrote:Warspite bugs the hell out of me. Maneuvers fantastically, myopic range (for a BB, at least). This for a ship of notoriously poor maneuverability who scored one of the longest-range gunnery hits ever recorded IRL.

On the upside, I've noticed much shorter queue times and loading sequences, along with slightly better lag and stability. Could just be me, but I get the impression they're working on those crucial things between actual headline patches.

Keep in mind that this is the 1937 refit of the Warspite and doesn't yet have the extra 10 degrees of gun elevation added to her turrets in the later refit. There's also the fact that wargaming is using maximum effective range rather than absolute maximum range for this game. They also said they'd be looking at overall ship handling in 0.3.1.

Borgholio wrote:They're adding the Montana? Is this the interwar-period ship from the 20's or the one that was supposed to come after the Iowas? If it's the latter, then that thing was a monster. I'd love to see one of those in action. Although the new Montanas were never actually built...has WoW released ships that were never build or only actual completed ships?

It's the post-Iowa Montana. They're also going to be adding at least two paper ships for the German tree as the Bismark is only going to be a tier 8 in WoWS.

Well, got access to the beta and turns out my laptop can't handle it. Guess I need to finally bite the bullet and get a gaming pc.

It's the post-Iowa Montana. They're also going to be adding at least two paper ships for the German tree as the Bismark is only going to be a tier 8 in WoWS.

Could be the "H" class ships. The H-39 would be the size of an Iowa, and the H-41 would be nearly as big as a Yamato. If they're adding paper ships, I wonder if they would ever add the Japanese A-150 class. That would be epic.

Jub wrote:

Venator wrote:Warspite bugs the hell out of me. Maneuvers fantastically, myopic range (for a BB, at least). This for a ship of notoriously poor maneuverability who scored one of the longest-range gunnery hits ever recorded IRL.

On the upside, I've noticed much shorter queue times and loading sequences, along with slightly better lag and stability. Could just be me, but I get the impression they're working on those crucial things between actual headline patches.

Keep in mind that this is the 1937 refit of the Warspite and doesn't yet have the extra 10 degrees of gun elevation added to her turrets in the later refit. There's also the fact that wargaming is using maximum effective range rather than absolute maximum range for this game. They also said they'd be looking at overall ship handling in 0.3.1.

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the info - wasn't aware of that refit.

That isn't quite it though - one of the devs has come out and said that maximum range is determined by the distance to the horizon from the main rangefinder. I wouldn't necessarily expect much of a range increase on that basis - though a non-premium Queen Elizabeth may get that usual FCS upgrade for +10% range (and don't ask me how they justify that in parallel with their previous logic). From previews of 3.1 it looks like a lot of the American battleships will have max ranges more similar to that of Warspite, at least until Tier 8.

Why so much whining over American bbs when they aren't going to be facing ijn bbs one to one all the time? It's not like the ijn bb can keep the range indefinitely or instead be forced into engagement with another ijn bb while ignoring the American.

Plus if they're anything like the Warspite that means they'll be stealthy, by battleship standards, and may be able to get a volley or two off while the enemy can't detect them to return fire properly.

Wow the new American carrier loadouts SUCK.

I can choose between having all 2 fighters and one dive bomber or 2 torps and a dive bomber and NO fighters at all?

Bullshit.

There is still the default 1/1/1 loadout with the first flight control tower, but in general, I agree with the opinion that the changes are terrible. If you end up in a match where I was last night, your carrier can just get heinously shut down by enemy carriers when the matchmaker decides it is Your Time To Die.

This was emphasised by the Ranger/Bogue combination I was put against, in my lonesome Bogue.

Before the changes, I at least had a chance of using my one fighter squadron to protect my torpedo bombers. Now? I was stuck having to rely on clevelands who don't appear to realise their special power is aerial denial.

It did not go well. Do not like.

On the flip side, American battlebotes are very fun to captain and shoot with. Lower tier have very fast projectile speed, for battleships.

Really? All I see is whining that WG obviously hates Americans and thus US bbs suck.

I'm almost at the New York and have just done the first two tiers (3 and 4) of the Murrica Botes, but so far? they are actually very fun to play. The gunnery and turn rates on them are very very good, even if they are slower than the St Loius up till the North Carolina.

They don't *feel* as slow as they actually are, they feel a lot more spritely.

I've found my experiences with them so far to be much more favourable than the japanese line of battleboats, which were actually painful to advance through in some cases - Myogi being a prime example. Battleships aren't for everyone, but I'd encourage everyone to at least give one a try during beta/before the wipe.

It's what the beta is there for afterall.

The fast projectiles of US BBs have actually messed me up a bit. In the South Carolina and Wyoming I've missed lots of opening salvos and ranging shots at enemy BBs because the projectiles travel much, much faster than I'm used to. Heck, they travel faster than the shells on my Omaha. It's nice once you get used to it, though.

And despite being slow, they maneuver nicely. I've managed to dodge multiple crossing torpedo salvos from torpedo planes and destroyers in the Wyoming. The Wyoming and South Carolina also have some pretty nice acceleration. That said, the gunnery ranges seem a bit low for BBs, though I don't have the game on my laptop to compare at the moment.

I thought the Myogi was fine. Its additional range over the Kawachi was certainly welcome. Perhaps I ended up running away a disproportionate amount of the time, but two aft turrets never bothered me.

Rekkon wrote:I thought the Myogi was fine. Its additional range over the Kawachi was certainly welcome. Perhaps I ended up running away a disproportionate amount of the time, but two aft turrets never bothered me.

The gun layout is nice. The gun count is not.

Is that some sort of turned off option, or do splashes from even 406 mm guns look really underwhelming in this game (as far as videos go from what I have seen)?

Also, out of curiosity, is that game typical free for all like WoT or would real life naval tactics benefit side using them? Videos look much more like FFA but that can be fault of players and the game being in beta, I guess.

Irbis wrote:Also, out of curiosity, is that game typical free for all like WoT or would real life naval tactics benefit side using them? Videos look much more like FFA but that can be fault of players and the game being in beta, I guess.

Depending on what fleet tactics you're talking about. Obviously scale compression applies, a destroyer couldn't really hunt down a carrier group in five minutes any more than a light tank could make a run on enemy artillery within 45 seconds of their opening barrage.

That said, people actually working together and coordinating placement is probably at least as important here as WoT, probably more so given the (sometimes total) lack of cover. Effective placement of the air wing, and cruisers/destroyers keeping the rest of a group under effective AAA/smoke screen coverage respectively, wins the battle.

PSA: warship Murmansk, some tokens, premium time and stuff, plus closed beta access is on sale for 1$ on HB

Anyone know if that key works if you already have beta access?

They give 2 keys, one with beta access, other with ship and tokens/stuff. Considering getting it too, too bad offer is much less generous to EU players

Well then...this should be interesting. Finally getting my chance to get into the Beta now.

So, is anyone still into this? I would have rather gotten the WW2 era Arkansas, but I guess it's good enough. But regrinding everything again, ouch.

I'll just concentrate on US Cruisers and BB's. The Japanese BB's don't really interest me past Fuso, though maybe I'll try Japanese cruisers. But i'd rather wait up and see the RN cruisers.

Yeah, I'm still playing this alongside FF:ARR. I'm going to be going up the US BB line and the Japanese cruiser line for starters.

I'm liking the new Japanese tier 8 premium cruiser and am still enjoying the Warspite.

Still playing, though I was gone over the weekend and did not get to recover any progress. IJN DDs are going to be my top priority.