Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'conqueror'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - Asia Language Based Communities
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
    • 한국어 커뮤니티
  • Mod Section
    • Player Modifications
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL






Drag Interests

Found 6 results

  1. Wargaming, As you nerfed the RN tier 10 tech line BB Conqueror in update 0.8.8 and stole her 457mm main gun option to give that to Thunderer, your "new", Coal only purchasable, clone of Conqueror, I believe it is only fair that anyone who had unlocked Conqueror, or had commenced working on the RN BB tech line prior to update 0.8.8 should be given a voucher to purchase Thunderer at half the normal Coal price (once they have unlocked Conqueror). Players invest considerable time and effort, and sometimes also money, into researching a ship line with the final goal to unlock the pinnacle tier 10 ship of that line. People generally know the options and characteristics of the ship they are working towards and when they finally unlock that reward to then discover you have taken, without compensation, a major component from that ship, and then are trying to sell that component back to them as part of a "new" version of effectively the same ship is totally wrong on any ethical or moral grounds. For me I've finally unlocked Conqueror today and what should have been something exciting quickly turned to disappointment and anger as I realised I had been jipped when I discovered my new Conqueror didn't have the option to change to the 457mm main guns, an options I've known about since I first looked into the Conqueror and started working on the RN BB line. I imagine that in your Terms and Conditions for using WoWS you probably have clauses in there giving you the right to change aspects of ships for balancing purposes. I argue that there is balancing and then there is outright stealing a module from a ship to give it to a repackaged version of the same ship, the two are not the same. Wargaming please do the right thing and compensate Conqueror owners by, for example, giving them a substantial discount on Thunderer. For those who owned Conqueror and have since purchased Thunderer please consider giving them a partial Coal refund. PS. The current in-game description for Conqueror: "This ship was designed as a battleship with increased firepower on the basis of the British experience in ship construction gained during World War II. The project was notable for the 457 mm main guns, which were developed in the early 1920s and were the most powerful British naval artillery systems." So WG where are these 457mm guns mentioned here, you know the ones we grinded our a$$es of to get? That's right you stole them. To everyone with Conqueror, or working towards it; the 457mm guns may not have been everyone's favourite choice, you may not even miss them but the fact is you earned them, but they stole them from you without compensating you for it or even instead adding something else to Conqueror to replace them. For WG celebration of WoWS' 4th birthday they stole this module from you so they could resell them back to you as "Thundered". So what will WG steal off us for their next celebration? PPS. To any troll that might attack me for making this suggestion; just imagine that one day your favourite ship in WoWS, whatever that is, suddenly had a major module removed from it and then WG tried to sell you a clone of that ship with that module in it. I think you would be fairly and rightfully pissed off, so think of that before you add any snide comments here.
  2. Renita_Matrovska

    Conqueror in Rank Battle

    What do you think about Conqueror performance in Rank Battle? I saw many players in most of the time playing Conqueror just to farming damage by burning enemy ship and always in distance to stay alive as long as he can to be on top exp. I feel like most of time they just play by themselves, doesnt care about teamfight.
  3. Cpt_Silger

    Regarding Conqueror...

    One thing that I’ve always stand against is the (stupid) addition of TWELVE 419 mm guns as STOCK. TWELVE OVERPOWERED GUNS. Montana Yamato GK (406) GK (420) Conqueror (419) Conqueror (457) Number of shells per salvo 12 9 12 12 12 8 Fire chance per shell (%) 36 35 38 41 48 63 Fire chance full salvo (%) 432 315 456 492 576 504 Maximum HE damage (per shell) 5.700 7.300 4.800 5.000 7.200 8.200 Maximum HE damage (full salvo) 68.400 65.700 57.600 60.000 84.600 65.600 Maximum AP damage (full salvo) 162.000 133.200 152.400 162.000 156.000 119.200 Does Conqueror have ¼ HE pen like GK? Yes. Does Conqueror have the most insane HE fire chance? Yes. Conqueror 419mm has the second highest maximum HE damage per shell, but Yamato has only nine guns and her 457 setup has only eight guns. Conqueror 419mm has the highest HE damage and fire chance per salvo compare to other 12-gun T10 BBs. Disgustingly so. The fire chance per salvo of Conqueror 419mm is much higher than even her own 457mm guns, which has the highest fire chance and HE damage per shell, but only eight guns. Why removing the 419mm gun option? Because she has TWELVE guns now. Nerf dispersion all you want, but TWELVE shells are more than enough to secure a hit every salvo with a player that has a slightest clue on how to aim. Eight shells per salvo? Meh. That's why New Mexico is so good. Why Fusou is so good. And why no one could reliably snipe in Gneisenau. Sheer number of shells per salvo. Requires next-to-no skill to play. How WG even considered adding them (419mm guns) at the first place is unthinkable. The ship was "marketed" with the second biggest gun size in the game and with that gun option, no one will use the obviously overpowered one for obvious profit. Nerfing Conqueror's repair and stealth only breaks the "traits" of the line (from T7) on, that they have low heal but great repair, they are stealthy and are better than any battleship at dealing damage through fire. At the current state it's TOO GOOD at that with that gun option. Remove the 12 419mm guns and everyone will stop complaining about how she is too much of a [content removed]. She will continue to survive match after match, but the damage she deals will be much less [content removed]. Literally nothing else needs to change (because they don't). Maybe even a slight HP buff to 85k. The announced "nerf" will only encourage more and more Conqueror's players to snipe, which adds more [content removed] into the game. Finally decided to swing the nerfbat, but at the wrong places. Conclusion: 419 mm gun “option” needs to go. It needs to be removed. Derogatory. Post edited, user sanctioned. ~amade
  4. Xplod2064

    Conqueror secondary build

    Hello all I was wondering if anyone has done a secondary build for the Conqueror and if it is even worth it? Also what builds are you guys running with for the commander/modules etc?
  5. With the introduction of RN BBs the player base has been introduced to battleships that are essentially floating flamethrowers, the like of which hasn't been seen since since the invention and lost of the greek fire by the byzantine empire. Community contributors quickly reported on their abilities to set other ships aflame, and the forum's quickly filled with post of the ships' superiority compare to their counterparts. A week later, the waves of posts have subsided, the win rate for the Conqueror sits at 54% on EU,52% on SEA , and 55% on NA[1]. But is this the cause of the superb HE shells? We'll look at the chance of setting a ship on fire(at least 1 fire) per turret(Assuming all the HE shell hits): Großer Kurfürst with 420mm : (1-(1-0.41)3) = 0.795 Großer Kurfürst with 406mm : (1-(1-0.38)3) = 0.762 Montana with 406mm : (1-(1-0.36)3) = 0.738 Yamato with 460mm : (1-(1-0.35)3) = 0.725 Conqueror with 419mm : (1-(1-0.48)3) = 0.859 Conqueror with 457mm : (1-(1-0.63)2) = 0.863 I've chosen to use a per turret value as we already know the chance per shell, and it is NOT possible to only fire 1 gun on each turret. Noting that dispersion value of each ship would affect the effective chance of setting fire, we can say it's been "balanced" to be roughly similar. Although, in the event that only 1 shell hits, the probability would favour the shell with higher fire chance. Next, we'll look at the chance of setting fire per ship salvo making all the previous assumptions Großer Kurfürst with 420mm : (1-(1-0.41)12) = 0.9982 Großer Kurfürst with 406mm : (1-(1-0.38)12) = 0.9968 Montana with 406mm : (1-(1-0.36)12) = 0.9952 Yamato with 460mm : (1-(1-0.35)9) = 0.9792 Conqueror with 419mm : (1-(1-0.48)12) = 0.9996 Conqueror with 457mm : (1-(1-0.63)8) = 0.9996 From the 2 data sets[2] we can see the RN BB managed a lead of roughly 10% in the chance to set fire per turret, however, per salvo, the difference is almost negligible. So, if the difference is only roughly 10%, why the sudden outcry? I put forward my hypothesis that it is the emergent properties of a whole branch being encouraged to use HE and the influx of players jumping on to this branch in the relatively short span of time, and the confirmation bias of other battleship's captain. From what I can tell, WG hasn't made any changed to the RN BBs in 6.11 as they wait for the statistics to "stabilise". A major point not discussed is the penetration of HE shells and how they affect fire chance. [1]http://wows-numbers.com/ships/ [2]http://wowsft.com/
  6. The conqueror's AAA is amazing early game with 659 dps for mid range. however after 5mins of being shelled, that dropped quite fast. Should WG look for a different way to balance its AA? Or is it not an issue since CV(if there's any) wouldn't want to risk their planes?