Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About HobartAWD

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cleaning the poop deck

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

684 profile views
  1. Why Normandie's AA is so bad?

    Sorry meant to say a hypothetical ship refit not just an AA upgrade. Forgot to say it seems boilers and turbines have been upgraded as well as the AA As I mentioned earlier in this topic Normandie's AA refit is early 30's all French AA, while Lyon is an early 40's refit has had the Richelieu treatment and has US 20mm Oerlikons and 40mm Bofors, as well as dual purpose secondaries. I don't agree with the disparity of the AA between the 2 ships, but WG always seems to take more liberties with paper ships vs ships that existed or were at least laid down. Honestly though this is T6 and there are not many ships with decent AA anyway. It receiving an upgrade over what it was designed to have is a big buff already. The higher speed and good manoeuvrability easily makes up for the average AA in my opinion. At T6 if a CV wants you bad it doesn't matter what you are sailing. I would rather be fast and nimble than slow with a bit better AA. Looking at you US BB. I don't agree with every hypothetical upgrade WG have applied to some ships but for Normandie it fits very well.
  2. Supercontainer Drop Rate

    I'm not navy. Just my in game name as I like the ships. Most powerful vessels the RAN has ever had.
  3. idea,s for new german BB

    Yep. That's what he is saying. Crazy I know, but that is what he is saying. Waiting now for threads asking for the IJN A-150 super Yamato battleship to be put into game
  4. idea,s for new german BB

    Easy there mate. Everything is not a personal attack against you. You said that the Germans had no idea about hull flexing in designing large ships in the 1940s. Completely incorrect. Larger ships built properly are just as seaworthy as smaller ones. Apologies for pointing this out. If you see my reply to the OP in the same post you will see that I point out that the designs after the H-41 were never seriously entertained or even acknowledged by the German naval high command. In short they were never intended to be built due to the situation in Germany. Major part of the theoretical design was making them more resistant to aerial bomb damage. We all know and agree that the reign of the BB ended with modern carrier aviation in WW2. Any of these hypothetical H class ships would have been slaughtered by enemy bomber aircraft in airspace where you did not have 100% aerial dominance.
  5. idea,s for new german BB

    FYI the H-39 is already in game. It is called the Friedrich der Große. You do realise that H-41 was the last design actually endorsed by the OKM? All following designs, H-42, H-43 and H44 were simply design studies into a hypothetical unbeatable battleship designed to defeat all surface threats at the time and with strong enough horizontal armour to be highly resistant to damage from better and more powerful allied bombs. Remember the fate of Tirpitz from the English Tallboy bombs? Hitler had requested a larger BB after the H-41 design was finalised. A committee was formed to study and design bigger BBs which resulted in H-42, H-43 and H-44. These hypothetical ships designs were never intended to be built. The German navy did not seriously consider construction of any of these designs, which were so large that they could not have been built in a traditional slipway. The construction office of the OKM did not even acknowledge the designs and sought to distance themselves from the projects which were deemed to be unnecessary and of doubtful merit given Germany's position. H-41 was an evolutionary design to improve upon failings in current designs. Everything after H-41 were simply academic exercises into "what ifs" to build an invincible BB and were complete fantasy. Many nations have had ships that were designed with all intention of them being made, but circumstances changed and they were cancelled. Normandie and Lyon class are just 2 examples of many. These H designs after H-41 are not even worthy to fall into this category. I sincerely hope WG are not entertaining the idea of introducing ships into the game that are not even paper ships. They were never endorsed or acknowledged by the German Naval high command (OKM). These are napkin ships at best. BTW H-44s design length was not over 400m it was 345 m and a displacement of 131,000 t. These specs are cited in the books by Gröner, and also in Garzke and Dulin. It does not matter what the ship is or if it is armoured or not, they all must have an allowance for hull bending stresses in their design or they will literally break in half. Hogging and sagging are the terms for the bending stresses a hull is subjected to when cresting waves or dipping into a trough. Engineers like Isambard Kingdom Brunel knew about these factors when designing the iron hull of the ship SS Great Britain way back in 1839. Even well before 1839 problems were found with wooden hulled ships with very long hulls. Practical limits on wooden hulls were known at this time to be around 300 feet, beyond this length regardless of how strong the keel was, the hogging stresses exceeded the structural strength of the wood. German battleships and battlecruisers in WW1 never broke in half from the hulls cracking, because their designs allowed for hogging and sagging. Why 25 years later in 1940 would they have forgotten how to build ships? I don't know why the Germans in 1940 would have chosen to forget something that was common knowledge in naval architecture for well over 100 years? FYI even modern ships with all the best design can experience hull stresses in excess of anything their designers ever allowed for. Below is the MOL Comfort back in 2013. The hull cracked in two from extreme hogging during bad weather off Yemen. Ship broke in two but remained afloat. The stern section eventually sank and a week later the bow sank also, before either could be towed to safety. The North Atlantic where German and RN ships were operating during WW1 and WW2 sees far worse weather and sea states than the coast of Yemen.
  6. Supercontainer Drop Rate

    Drop rate of SCs for me with TYL was between 1 a week to 1 or 2 in a month. I have stopped doing TYL and switched to the more resources containers too. Don't care about SC drop rate as I'm getting stuff that is far more useful now anyway. The sore point I have is that it is hard enough to get a SC, then you have another RNG roll to actually get something even remotely "super" from the container. Last 2 SCs I got were 25 Dragon flags and 50 November Foxtrot. Very meh. Anything like signals that can be purchased in the arsenal or re-supply with credits should not drop in SCs anymore, in my opinion.
  7. Please remove the karma system

    Many in my clan have zero karma and guess what...… chat still works for them too. Karma of zero DOES NOT disable your chat. Completely incorrect statement there. Believe what you want but it is 100% wrong.
  8. That was weird

    Well it is an Atlanta, so maybe a shell was still slowly floating in the air towards a target and eventually hit and did 1 HP damage after you finish the game. Seriously though I have no idea. Maybe under certain circumstances damage value can get rounded up. Never seen that before.
  9. I figured something must have gone wrong with the MM during that game. No exaggeration at all. No I don't have a screenshot but it was 4 minutes something before the team lists came up. That kind of waiting time has only happened the one time I can remember, which is why I remember it so clearly. I left the room 2 or 3 times and kept coming back expecting the game to have kicked me back to the login screen but it got there eventually. Many co-op games for me regularly take well over 30 seconds. Some around 45 seconds and more occasionally up to just over 1 minute.
  10. I had a co-op game once that look 4 or 5 minutes to start. Doesn't it say max of 30 seconds for a co-op game? Regularly have games that take way longer than 30 seconds.
  11. can anyone explain this?

    Found something interesting while reading about AP shell penetration mechanics. It turns out that extremely rarely a single AP shell can in certain rare circumstances deal max alpha (citadel) 1/3 alpha (regular pen) and 1/10 alpha (over pen) all in the same penetration. Still doesn't explain why 3 AP shells from Dunkerque did 48.8 K damage in my screenshot. 3 Dunkerque shells doing all 3 types of pen would be more like 41 K, so that isn't what happened in my case. Like I said previously the detailed report isn't always 100% accurate. Following is quoted from one of the WOWS Wiki pages: "There is also the peculiarity of a single shell doing all three forms of damage (10%, 33% and 100%) simultaneously. It is not entirely clear if this is intentional game design or not, and is difficult to reproduce."
  12. 1) Karma is pointless and has no tangible effect on you or your gameplay other than to make you feel better. (or worse if you care about negative Karma) Just a number that reflects how many times you have been complimented or reported. Play the game to the best of your ability. Always try to play positive towards a win for your team and don't care what others think about you. 2) It is not limited to just IJN BB shells. Several patches ago a big change was made to shell penetration mechanics. WG really glossed over the details as the description WG gave was extremely vague along the lines of "enhanced the interaction of shells and armour". General consensus after the change was that citadels were harder to come by and you saw more weird over pens and the like. CL are still easy to delete, at least when I am sailing in one anyway.
  13. can anyone explain this?

    Actually no, torpedo damage does not work that way. It is damage saturation. Also torp hits rarely deal full damage. Even hits to a DDs middle only deal a max of 0.9 x torpedo damage. See links below. http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Damage_Saturation http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Torpedoes#Damage It's not your fault you don't know this after 8K + battles. I believe there isn't enough education and information about the very complex game mechanics. Some you don't have to understand to play the game but some are more important. Damage saturation is for gun damage as well as torps. The game tells you when a ships section has become "damage saturated" as it will become black and looked charred and burnt. If you continue to shoot at this same section you will deal significantly less damage. Stop shooting here and aim elsewhere. On larger ships if a torpedo hits an area that is not part of the torpedo protection it will deal more damage than if it hit the torpedo belt. However multiple hits to that same area will cause damage saturation. For smaller ships like DD with no torpedo belt multiple hits to the same area will cause that part to become saturated and unable to take full damage. It becomes a valid tactic in game when say for example, your stern has become damage saturated to sail away from enemy while shooting at then with rear guns and watching all their shells do little to no damage to you because they are hitting the damage saturated part of your ship. Had a Missouri game where I tanked over 2.4 million damage on my stern from a montana trying (and failing) to gun me down because of this. See one of my Lo Yang games. Same thing as you, many torp hits but very low damage to a DD with no torpedo belt. As to the high damage of 1 single 200mm Kaga AP shell, well the in game detailed report is not 100% accurate. I have had many similar instances occur in my battles where a small number of shells have dealt ridiculously high damage. Look at my Dunkerque game in screenshot. AP shell max damage on Dunkerque is 9700. 3 AP shells apparently did 48.8 K damage, which is impossible. It's a bug with the reporting of shell hits and damage. No big deal.
  14. I bought a heap of the perma camos when that golden week 50% off sale was on. Honestly I never looked at the time if the Musashi HSF camo was discounted, but I would say no as I'm sure it was only for researchable tech tree ships. I would say it will not be ever discounted as @legionary2099 says. Collab the price will be fixed. Nice that the HSF camo has a bit of a bonus over the standard premium camo, but not worth the 5k dubs imho unless you plan on playing the ship a heck of a lot.
  15. vote for WGC or not

    I will say first that I don't have a widow so I cannot comment how this plays on her. Just checked on the WGC process for 20 mins or so while I was running WOWS and playing a couple of battles. CPU usage never went over 2%. Memory usage was fairly stable at 184.5 MB. I know I have a fairly beefy PC, but honestly that is nothing. I appreciate this will be slightly different on other OS and with different hardware, but how can WG be held accountable for people running the game on an ancient PC? If this kind of CPU usage and memory usage is of a serious concern and is holding you back update or replace your PC. I understand not everyone is in a financial position to just go and invest between several hundred to several thousand dollars on a PC upgrade or replacement, but it is not WG's fault how rubbish your PC is. WGC install size of ~ 240MB is what it is. Compared to my WOWS install of 39.8 GB, (including ~ 2.6 GB of replays and screenshots) I seriously cannot believe people are complaining about the install size. Refer to paragraph above. I get that the launcher has issues for many people. I could say "it works for me why all the drama" but this is not only childish but also unhelpful. If the core problems of the WGC that many are experiencing can be resolved and fixed then I have no problem continuing to use it.