Jump to content

InterconKW

Member
  • Content Сount

    390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5064

Community Reputation

131 Respected

2 Followers

About InterconKW

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Not the bottom of Surigao Strait

Recent Profile Visitors

1,441 profile views
  1. InterconKW

    CV experts

    To some extent I agree with you. While I do not like full generalizations there are many players in the WoWs community who blindly complain about a class in a factually incorrect manner, making a complete mockery of themselves in the face of people who are extensively experienced with the topic material. It is even worse when said players defend their blind opinions as fact even when they are blatantly incorrect. Many complaints about carriers now would not be relevant if people were simply experienced with playing them and knowing the actual experience. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
  2. InterconKW

    My first T10

    Congratulations on your first TX!
  3. So it seems the Tier 6 Premiums from completing 15 battles in all 3 PTS versions for the event have been released. I got mine today... Gave it a little test drive too, it seems great! How is everyone else doing?
  4. Thanks for the attention to the issue. I also completed the missions. Will wait I guess.
  5. InterconKW

    MM needs fixing ASAP

    You say "matchmaking needs fixing" I ask "so how would you do it" I'm not going to deny that one sided games are common in World of Warships, but there's a good reason why. It's not the matchmaking, it is that people are bad. So bad that the median winrate is reliably monitored to be 48%. When one team starts with an advantage on Asia, that advantage tends to be maintained. See it this way. Team A and B are both composed of average players (who are mostly mediocre). 6 ships from A and 6 ships from B approach an objective. The team B destroyer suicides, denying B spotting. The team A destroyer caps more freely if he has any understanding of the game (not everyone does). A goes to a 6 v 5 with spotting advantage. Most of these (mediocre skill) players on B react to this change too slowly, either pushing in in a suicide stream or simply being caught by focus fire. A:B goes 6v5 to 6v4 to 5v3 and B is left markedly behind. More guns firing with Asia's natural focus fire and the lack of game sense to tell when one needs to change from an aggressive position to a defensive one pretty much means the team that gets the early advantage always rolls over. Conversely, teams sometimes also throw teams after an early advantage when they overpush before an advantage is defined. But you should get the idea.
  6. InterconKW

    Your priorities are horrible, WG

    What's the point of this complaint, really. If a line was underperforming noticeably it would be bad for the line's popularity, which would be in turn wasted effort for the developer. So Wargaming has a system of rebalancing based on (presumably) data. Their decisions are not always agreeable to everyone, but it just so happened that for whatever reason a massive and global hit to CV player numbers and performance made the cut faster than a battleship that had been deemed balanced on release (And for some reason paraded as too strong just for its armor apparently) and only was shown to fall out of favor over time. Wonder why. (P.S. All German BBs have inconsistent guns compared to their counterparts and are bad in my eyes)
  7. InterconKW

    1 Game with No CV

    If I had played 14 midtier games and 13 had CVs, and they were pre-rework CVs, my battles would have been multiple times worse than now. But to tell the truth, at this point the CV population is such that I get maybe 2/3 my games with and 1/3 without carriers, with the carriers generally less impactful than pre-rework, which sort of seems to be a healthy balance for both surface enjoyment and the carrier population.
  8. InterconKW

    Remove Newport from Scenario Rotation

    Okay. I struggled immensely during the previous rotation of Newport because let's be real, the median WR of people in this game is 48% and you can expect nothing. However, there are a few ships that excel at carrying this operation. I'd like to single out the use of my Leander, Shinonome and Farragut that gave me a 90% 5 star ratio. The strategy is quite simple. Hover around the middle during the first 3 waves putting point blanc torps into all targets from smoke and shellfire into the destroyers leading each wave, given they automatically shoot anything in range and thus remain spotted while you freely kill them (with the cruiser, stay far enough away to smokefire), especially the BBs. After all 3 waves die (mostly to your effort) the Leander is slightly better for focusing the two enemy cruisers chasing the Baltimore then smoking to farm the final wave ships while waiting for the Izumo to get closer to torp it. With the DDs, go straight for the middle island the Izumo will pass to the right of. Gun down the two DDs escorting the Izumo then plant a the fist-o-torpedo-destruction into it at point blanc from behind the island. This almost completely ensures your team will pull through.
  9. InterconKW

    Z-49 in movie U571

    The real Z49 was a Type 1936C destroyer in the Kriegsmarine, or rather would have been had it not been cancelled after the order due to a lack of resources. The Z49 in the film is a... ...Tugboat called the Proteo with fake turrets and pyrotechnics mounted on it for the movie. During filming it was serving as a salvage tug for the Italian Navy, but in 2004 it was sold to the Bulgarian navy where it continues to sail today. Not advised for addition to the game.
  10. InterconKW

    USSR LAZO

    Contrary to the first poster I've personally found the Lazo to be a balanced ship, trading some DPM over its tiermate Shchors for better protection and range. The belt armor is nothing to write home about in thickness, but has decent coverage when angled. Granted, you still want to be making use of your range rather than trying to tank shell hits. The spotter plane though gimmicky has allowed me to practice and improve my spotter shooting. Comes with the usual excellent ballistics and turret handling. AA leaves something to be desired. I'm currently trying to maintain an average damage in excess of 70000, and my current solo winrate exceeds 80% though the latter is definitely partly due to luck. Overall, a comfortable damage farmer when used right. Generous for Wargaming to give it away free, but optional none the less, nowhere does it say you need to force yourself to work for it though if you're a decent to good player or at least familiar with the play-style, you'll probably appreciate it. Anyone who thinks it is bad probably hasn't played a Russian midtier cruiser before, she definitely holds her own. Some of my favorite Lazo games to date below.
  11. InterconKW

    Another teaser, IJN DD - NOT with 100 mm

    I don't know what on earth this is but as far as I'm concerned it's entirely made up. Guess they played everyone. It has a more historically accurate bow and stern than the actual Shimakaze ingame too
  12. InterconKW

    Another teaser, IJN DD - NOT with 100 mm

    Still tending towards Shimakaze. They recently remodelled Yamato and as I said earlier the current Shimakaze model is very old and inaccurate, as opposed to a new ship.
  13. InterconKW

    Another teaser, IJN DD - NOT with 100 mm

    I believe it's called a Blast Bag, and the proportions of the gunhouse are accurate to the IJN 12.7cm/50 Type 3. The 10cm would have a shorter gunhouse. Photos showing Shimakaze (forget the actual gunhouses, even on the wreck they are utterly destroyed) are already rare, so...
  14. InterconKW

    Another teaser, IJN DD - NOT with 100 mm

    If you look carefully at the form of this ship, from the bow form to the bridge to the aft superstructure that does not extend forward of the mainmast to the line of the stern and the proportions of the barrels, it's almost certainly the Shimakaze. A remodel would make sense given the existing Shimakaze model is dated and very inaccurate.
  15. InterconKW

    Why some are and some arent

    Default battleship reload time in-game is 30 seconds which was the design standard of many real world large caliber naval guns. Your facts are blatantly incorrect and I will point out the issues one by one. A lot of people look at historical values from a flat perspective and fail to properly interpret them. Navweaps is one basic online source states the following on Bismarck. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php "Krupp official documents cite the ROF as being 26 seconds at a four degree elevation, not notably faster than that of other nations' large-caliber weapons. Note that at this elevation the range would be considerably less than 10,000 meters. It is possible that well trained gun crews would reduce this time to the 20 seconds necessary to meet a ROF of 3 times per minute. A May 1941 report by the German Artillerieversuchskommando - AVSK (Artillery Testing Command for Ships) stated that the turret ammunition hoists on Bismarck were capable of delivering between 23 and 25 rounds per minute (for all four turrets), the equivalent of 3 rounds per minute per gun. However, this same report stated that design faults in the hoists led to two significant breakdowns during the evaluation, both of which caused long interruptions in the ammunition supply. Finally, it should be noted that Bismarck fired a total of 91 rounds during her thirteen minutes of firing at the Denmark Strait battle, which is actually less than one round per gun per minute." Bismarck's turrets were incredibly heavy for 15" turrets, almost 200 tons more than the British 15"/42 Mk. I turrets. Her hoists and arrangement are possibly quite overbuilt but are capable of delivering design rate of fire. However, in any prolonged engagement the rate of fire for a capital ship would be much lower than design spec. Why? Well, first of all, when a real ship was ranging its targets it had to traditionally observe where the ranging salvoes fell. This would take more than 30 and even up to 90 seconds as the shells flew to their targets and during that interval the guns would not fire, then adjust accordingly. Firing at maximum rate of fire with no perception of where your shells would actually go would be pointless. The guns can fire at design rate of fire when at optimal loading angle in many cases. However, this loading angle is useless for combat and in practice a gun would have to load, elevate, fire, depress back to the loading angle and repeat, adding a few extra seconds to the cycle. Additionally in the handling rooms of a ship, propellant and shells are being moved manually. When the engagement drags out, rate of fire drops off markedly as the crew tires and measuring in minutes per round becomes more logical than rounds per minute. You do not have to deal with these factors ingame as rangefinding and crew exhaustion are nonfactors. Keeping these factors in mind and considering the Krupp documents (26 seconds being accurate to Bismarck's ingame reload) Bismark ingame has a historically accurate design reload but overall, like all BBs ingame, fires even faster than in reality. As for Yamato? Her guns are designed for 2RPM and fire slower in practice. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.php "At the loading angle of +3 degrees, a firing cycle of about 30 seconds could be achieved. However, this would equate to a range of no more than 6,560 yards (6,000 m). The additional elevation and depression times required to reach an elevation of 41 degrees increased the firing cycle by about 11 seconds. As can be seen in the Range Table below, most ship-to-ship actions would rarely exceed an elevation of 20 degrees, so an intermediate time of 35 seconds would seem to be reasonable for most battle-range engagements." It's a similar case, though all high tier BBs ingame can benefit from a reload upgrade module that trades turret traverse for rate of fire. Last of all, Wikipedia Japan (I get Wikipedia is not exactly an authoritative source but the article on this vessel is very well cited and comprehensive) states the following on the performance of the 36cm/45 41st Year Type used on Kongo, Fuso and Ise. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/扶桑型戦艦 爆風の影響に関しては山城竣工後の1918年(大正7年)8月6日に行われた戦闘射撃訓練の際に山城が距離18,800m〜18,100m[17]の距離からの射撃で遠近散布界平均285m[18]、斉射間隔28秒。計69発の使用弾数中第一有効弾7、第二有効弾5、第三有効弾11と優秀な成績を記録しており Roughly translated, during firing trials of the Fuso-class on August 6 1918, the shells were cycled under optimal conditions in 28 seconds, exceeding design claims. This is actually accurate to Fuso's ingame reload. However, keeping in mind this figure would never be achieved in combat practice 30 seconds, the design rate of fire (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_14-45_t41.php), is given to Kongo and Myogi ingame, and that is quite reasonable. As others have said, this is not a simulator. There are many guns ingame with slightly adjusted rates of fire for balancing purposes, but I believe these 3 examples actually show how Wargaming has tried to give little nods to the ship's real counterparts even when doing so. And that is respectable enough. Additionally, I hope you learn a bit more history than the basics from my little writeup.
×