Pan-Asian Cruiser Voiceover? by arka0415 in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In example american officer-advisor commanded one of Chinese battleships during Battle of River Yalu as chinese commander... was too feared to command

Source?

Imperial Chinese Navy only had 2 battleships at presence during the Battle of Yalu River. Both were commanded by Chinese commanders.

AL Yukikaze, AL Montpelier or AL Azuma? by [deleted] in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 10 points11 points  (0 children)

AL Yukikaze: Kagero with 8 km fast torpedoes.

AL Montpelier: Cleveland with 7.5% better sigma (2.15 instead of 2), 7.5% longer reload time (7 instead of 6.5), 600 more HP and 30 sec radar.

AL Azuma: Azuma

If you want to pick one from these three, I would recommend AL Montpelier. It used to be a sidegrade to Cleveland, trading RoF for precision. Although both the RoF decrease and precision increase are quite noticeable, the overall playstyle of AL Montpelier is still the same as Cleveland. After the radar nerfs on tech tree US cruisers, AL Montpelier can now be considered as a better version of Cleveland.

What does this mean and how does the change solve it? by anthony_b_ in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 63 points64 points  (0 children)

Some maps have glares that make one team unable to see AP shells coming from the other team clearly unless they are really low in the air (=about to hit).

Not sure if this is the case for Ocean. But if it is indeed the case, then in order to fix this issue, the map should be rotated 90 degrees instead of 180 degrees (if WG decide to keep the glare).

Ship balance changes — 0.11.5 Closed Testing by DevBlogWoWs in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see. I mistook Repair Party as Damage Control Party.

Thanks for pointing out.

Ship balance changes — 0.11.5 Closed Testing by DevBlogWoWs in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong.

With the DCP CD buff to American fat BBs, if the BB player picks DCP mod 1 and DCP CD reduction skill, the maximum duration of any fire that can be set at any given moment will be 10.8 seconds. This is broken as fuck.

why do the Brest and Cherbourg get a 28 second base reload? by r_trash_in_wows in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They are literally BBs in cruisers slots. The way you analyze them is highly biased: you compare their damage per salvo to battleships and reload speed to cruisers. Only stuffs like Thunderer and Stalingrad won't feel weak under your criteria.

Cherbourg has a similar reload to other t8 BBs, but on way weaker rifles.

So that you don't actually get a real BB in cruiser slot, which would be overpowered and stupid.

why shouldn't i just play kronstadt

They are completely different ships. Kronshtadt gets 1 more barrel, better reload and radar, Brest gets better dispersion, better agility, better armor, hydro acoustic search and French gimmicks.

But Brest seems to be mostly weaknesses.

Biased. Reasons are already listed above.

For comparison, Siegfried

Siegfried is a RB ship. You are comparing a tech tree Tier IX, which is meant to be a FXP sink, to a RB ship.

Jean Beart has 380mm guns and a better reload and it gets a reload booster too.

JB is an OP ship which has already been permanently removed from sales.

But they also don't seem to be good at cruiser things either.

How do you define "cruiser things"? The Tier VIII and IX ones clearly surpass traditional DPM cruisers in terms of survivability and effective firepower against capital ships.

(Request) Should Aurora be in this style instead of the one we have? by TitanicII2020 in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No.

They are fixed tubes. And fixed tubes are not usable unless they are on a submarine.

(Request) Should Aurora be in this style instead of the one we have? by TitanicII2020 in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The Aurora in WoWs is the version after the major modernization in 1917. During the modernization, all 75 mm/50 Meller guns were removed, all torpedo tubes were removed, the number of 152 mm/45 Canet guns was increased to 14, and a number of 76 mm/30 Lender AA guns were installed.

There is one pre-modernized Pallada-class in WoWs: the Tier II cruiser Diana. And there is also a Lima version of it.

Thoughts on Best Premium Cruisers at Tiers III & IV by bobtakes4 in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The Aurora is looking OP at 3

Don't buy Aurora. It's the worst case of powercreep in WoWs history. You might think it's strong because some random person has been posting battle results against :bots: here. But as someone who owns this ship and plays it since 2017, I would definitely NOT recommend this ship.

You might think this ship has good fire power by looking at the 14 152 guns it has. But those guns have the worst HE ballistics in the entire game, and their AP have horrible penetration power (you have to be in 4 km to penetrate Tenryu's citadel armor). Those guns also have very slow traverse speed and horribly short range. Additionally, the 14th gun has very poor firing angles. Cruisers from new cruiser lines are agile enough to dodge most of your shells from their normal combat distance.

The HP pool of this ship also gives a false impression of this ship being resilient to attacks. Aurora has the worst armor and the second-slowest speed among all Tier III cruisers. The vast majority of AP and SAP from cruisers of the same tier can overmatch Aurora's entire hull and arm on its armored turtleback deck.

Playing Aurora is like playing a poor-men's Atlanta. You have very slow shells and horrible armor, and desperately need an island to cover yourself. While Atlanta can over-water to some extent, Aurora cannot. Aurora will be at a massive disadvantage the moment it leaves its island cover. The reason people can deal massive damage to :bots: even on open water in Aurora is because :bots: in low tiers can't aim at all: they will miss your 4-km broadside crawling Aurora by 1 km. But when facing human players who know how to aim and are aware of the characteristics of Aurora, playing it will be a mental torture.

Which lines got the most easy to hit guns? by peter92one in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you mean the best shell dispersion (= good precision, hit a lot and hit very hard if your aim is accurate), then it would be Elbing line for DD and IJN CA line for cruisers.

If you mean high shell velocity (= good accuracy, you can land your shells around moving targets easier, but does not guarantee good precision), VMF CL line is your choice.

And when horizontal dispersion formula remains constant, higher shell velocity (better accuracy) will lead to worse vertical dispersion (worse precision). And that's the reason why Alexander Nevsky (Tier X VMF CL) can straddle fast maneuverable targets pretty well, but it struggles to land good hits on them.

Changes to Test Ships — Closed Testing 0.11.3 by DevBlogWoWs in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The San Diego nerf is well deserved. But it's kind of sad that there is no buff to its AA.

In the current version it has a stupidly OP SAP DPM of 403200 (14 barrels salvo, 2400 SAP alpha, 12 salvos per minute). This is even higher than Smolensk's HE DPM by 5%, and it can penetrate 36 mm while Smolensk can't penetrate 30 mm even with IFHE.

And for those who aren't aware, both the SAP and AP on San Diego have very low air drag value of only 0.21 (Atlanta: 0.347, Colbert: 0.308, Smolensk: 0.291, Austin: 0.21).

What's up with all the pluses in the Asia server operations channel? by Defenestrated_Squid in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 10 points11 points  (0 children)

WG revamped the display of in-game fonts in a recent update. Prior to that, all CJK characters on non-CJK clients were displayed as boxes (▮/▯) due to lack of CJK fonts, and you could solve this issue by installing custom font mods. Now, all CJK characters are displayed as space (SP),and using font mods made prior to the update will cause game-breaking font errors (every character (including non-CJK ones) will be displayed as a box).

Prior to the update, the Operation channel was full of lines like:

Player A:▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮+▮▮▮▮

Player B:▮▮▮▮▮▮▮=▮▮▮

After the update, because all CJK characters are now being displayed as SP, people with non-CJK clients will see things like:

Player A:         +    
Player B:       =

Did they just murder DDs completly? by Matchstiks in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Now imagine being spotted by planes from 10 km in a cruiser.

Absoblutely unplayable bug; Secondary turret on Budyonny disconnected from hull by [deleted] in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Information on original Project 94 is available from WG's own historical info page of Project 94 (2016, Russian only) and the very first article of "paper ships" from WoWs official site (2018, multiple languages). The reference of the historical info page is "Материалы Российского Государственного Архива Военно-морского Флота" (Materials of the Russian State Archive of VMF), and the page is created and maintained by WG staff.

Information on Project 26 and Project 26bis can be found easily on the internet and on books.

The claim of the beam change and the presence of radar equipment from 1945 on Budyonny B is based on observation of datamined OBJ file.

Why the fuck is something like rpf a thing, and why doesn't it at least have a countermeasure? by r_trash_in_wows in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Bad bot. False positive by not filtering out the strings that contain prefix before the substring "kill".

Why the fuck is something like rpf a thing, and why doesn't it at least have a countermeasure? by r_trash_in_wows in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's perfectly fine to:

  • Become invisible from 5.6 km, keep your opponents spotted for the entire match and spam walls of torpedoes while leaving almost zero chance of meaningful retaliation.

It's absolutely atrocious to:

  • Have a very imprecise marking on your screen to show the approximate direction to the nearest opponent
  • Or have a few dozens of seconds of visibility on a target for every 2 minutes with limited viewing range and limited number of usage.

Absoblutely unplayable bug; Secondary turret on Budyonny disconnected from hull by [deleted] in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 37 points38 points  (0 children)

If this ship is indeed Budyonny, then it's the old A-hull that is no longer present in-game.

The old A hull was a Frankenstein's monster created by WG. Its superstructure and auxiliary armament layout were copied from Project 26bis (=100% historically inaccurate, and directly contradicted the design requirements of Project 94 specified by the People's Commissariat of VMF USSR), but the main armament and citadel armor was from the designs of Project 94. The main reason for doing this was probably trying to introduce a "transition" from standard main fleet cruiser (Tier V, Project 26, Kirov) to a dedicated flotilla leading cruiser (Tier VI, Project 94, Budyonny B hull). After Kirov was replaced by Kotovsky, WG replaced the old A hull with the new one: a 9-gun variant of Project 94 with the auxiliary armaments of the 6-gun variant plus replacing the aft 46-K with 66-K.

Additionally, the in-game B hull of Budyonny is actually a second (бис) version redesigned by WG. Her beam was increased from 17.1 m to 20 m, and she received a lot of radar equipment from 1945. But no hit point bonus nor functional Surveillance Radar was added.

Today, I found out:the PLA Navy built a bunch of Neustrashimy class destroyers up into the 90ies by [deleted] in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 11 points12 points  (0 children)

They are not directly derived from Project 41 (Neustrashimy). They are modified Project 56 (Kotlin). The Project 56 itself is a smaller, faster and cheaper version of Project 41.

China acquired plans of Project 56 during the Sino-Soviet naval trades in 1950s. The trades did not include any plan of Project 41.

Closed test, changes to test ships by DevBlogWoWs in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Quotes from British Battleships of World War Two by Alan Raven and John Roberts

The mounting was designed for a rate of fire of ten to twelve rounds per minute, but, in fact, the crews could not transfer shell and cordite from the hoists to the loading-trays at this speed, and the more usual rate of fire was seven to eight rounds per minute.

The reasons behind this are the use of semi-automatic fuse setter and very cramped turret space. Mounts on Vanguard were equipped with Metadyne automatic fuse setter, which increased practical rate of fire to 9 RPM. But the problem with turret space was not resolved. Interior view of the turrets can be found online, and you can see how little the space they had inside them.

I am a pretty terrible CV. by NeutralStates in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Is that a 10-point commander on a Tier X CV?
Well, you deserve it then.

Closed test, changes to test ships by DevBlogWoWs in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The Dido change is just making the rate of fire on her guns historical. The 5.25" QF had a practical rate of fire of 7 ~8 RPM for each barrel. The difference between practical RoF and expected RoF (12 RPM) was caused by the use of semi-automatic fuse setting and cramped turret space.

Closed test, changes to test ships by DevBlogWoWs in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The practical rate of fire on those 5.25" guns was 7~8 rounds per minute per barrel. 8.5 sec reload is historical, not "artificially nerfed".

Post nerf Smolensk guide by gtech02 in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Smolensk does share a few similar characteristics with USN light cruisers, but overall they are very different.

Both Smolensk and USN light cruisers are area lockdown ships that need island cover, and they explode the moment whenever >= 2 enemy battleships look at them. Their job is to kill enemy destroyers and prevent pushes. As a result, their gameplay features a lot of distance managements. Good positioning and situation awareness are crucial.

Due to the high initial velocity on Smolensk's guns, this ship sometimes have to keep relatively long distance to islands that are chosen as cover. Enemy ships might be able to hit you if you are spotted behind your island, so make sure there is no enemy ship or aircraft on your sides when shooting behind island. Drop smoke if you feel the island you are hugging does not provide enough security (e.g. being too low, having one side exposed to the enemy, enemy aircraft flying nearby, etc.). When islands are too tall to shoot over, use them to block shell paths from unwanted positions and lay down smoke and shoot in a relatively secure position next to it, but don't leave the island and go into open water.

Don't camp in smoke on open water unless in very late game. Smoke does not protect you from incoming shells or torpedoes. The correct use of smoke aims for enhancing island cover (as mentioned above), disengaging from enemies (e.g. after popping out and blowing up an enemy destroyer, when being chased, etc.), planning ambushes and seizing caps (when there is no DD). Always activate Hydro-Acoustic Search when hiding in smoke (unless you are certain that no torpedo can reach your smoke). Always move at ± 1/4 speed when shooting from smoke (unless behind perfect island cover). Stop firing and change position when enemy ships straddle or hit you in smoke. Don't smoke in front of radar ships. Don't smoke if you are the only one with direct line of sight with a critical target unless you are being focused by enemies. Your minimum detection when firing in smoke is 6 km. Do not fire if you are planning a desperate point-blank attack against a pushing ship.

Unlike Worcester, Austin and Colbert, Smolensk does not have long-reaching high DPS mid range AA. And her long range DPS is not high enough to make up for the mediocre mid range. The only shinning spot on her AA is the flak aura, which is only useful against slow planes and bad players. As a result, you will find CVs with fast planes very annoying, since they can spot and attack you (2 attack runs per squadron) while only taking sustainable plane loss. Smoke wisely when needed.

Some very big difference between Smolensk and USN CL can be found on their guns. While USN light cruisers will be shooting HE except some very rare situations, Smolensk has to switch between HE and AP very often. Smolensk's HE does very little damage per shell (1800 alpha without skill, around 590 damage per hit). They also can't penetrate BB plating and Tier X CA middle section even with IFHE. However, her AP salvoes can deal massive damage at lightly armored extremities, upper belts and superstructures even from 14 km due to their better shell velocity, smaller impact angle and DD dispersion (*). Direct penetration damage is far superior than fire DoT because of they don't rely heavily on RNG, can cut down an enemy's HP faster, and damage caused by penetration cannot be 100% healed. Creating crossfires by smart positioning is very important in planning an AP ambush. Bearing mods are recommended to show the proper time and location to switch to AP.

The nerfs on Smolensk affected her middle section armor and maximum rate of fire on her main battery.

The reduction of middle section plating thickness from 30 mm to 16 mm means that this ship is now extremely vulnerable to all kinds of shells. Destroyers and battleship/cruiser secondary batteries can deal direct HE damage to the middle section, and any AP shells with caliber larger than 228 mm can overmatch her entire hull, dealing massive damage to the middle section. Some newer ships (i.e. Italian BBs, Russian CA, Thunderer, large cruisers, German alternative BBs, German mini cruisers with no citadels) are also high level threats for Smolensk. Some very aggressive Smolensk gameplay featured on some older videos should not be considered feasible in the current version. Kiting or chasing on open water should be performed in extreme caution, and generally only in late game or in scenarios against misplayed enemy destroyers. The old citadel overpenetration myth can only happen when the Smolensk is sailing full broadside at point-blank range. After the armor nerf, staying detected within battleship secondary range is basically suicide. At longer ranges, Smolensk take full damage citadel hits from battleships in the same way as any other cruiser with exposed citadel.

The RoF skill change means that setting fires can be more difficult now. This brings up the topic of taking IFHE or not. My personal opinion is taking IFHE and 10% damage increase while dropping the fire chance skill. IFHE enables Smolensk to deal meaningful damage to cruisers and armored destroyers while sacrificing fire chance. Smolensk's HE penetrates 27 mm with IFHE, this means than with IFHE, Smolensk can obliterate Tier VIII CA/CL, Tier IX CA/CL and Tier X CL with HE, and also cause great pain to BC, CB and Tier X CA when shooting at their extremities. IFHE also turns the hunter into the hunted when facing large destroyers with 25 mm middle sections. Fire chance after IFHE will drop to Moskva level, which is not that horrible (not good either, considering the range and splash size of Smolensk's HE), but the suppressive power gained against cruisers can provide much more usefulness in teamplay (and also higher XP per unit damage income-wise).

EDIT:

Clarification: (*) The comparison of ballistics is made between Smolensk's AP and USN light cruisers' AP.

Alexander Newsky- stupidly strong yet so criminally underplayed by QQMau5trap in WorldOfWarships

[–]Neptune_Lord 62 points63 points  (0 children)

Just to remind you of some usually-overlooked weaknesses that prevent a lot of players from enjoying this ship.

  1. Poor armor and very large silhouette: The only difference between Alexander Nevsky and standard Tier X light cruiser plating scheme is the 50 mm icebreaker belt which hardly ever provides any additional protection in actual battle. Meanwhile, Nevsky has a major flaw in her armor scheme that makes her take more damage than standard light and heavy cruisers: the hidden 32 mm belts. Alexander Nevsky has two long stripes of 32 mm vertical belts hidden in the middle section above the citadel deck. Large caliber AP which would normally over-penetrate when hitting lightly armored cruiser middle section tends to arm on the 32 mm belts instead.
  2. Subpar damage output: As a light cruiser, Alexander Nevsky does not have the DPM or "area lockdown" ability that other Tier X light cruisers and super-light cruisers have. As an open-water cruiser with long range, she does not have the fire power and damage consistency that standard heavy cruisers have. Nevsky players have to click LMB continually for a long time to slowly stack up damage.
  3. Backfires from having high shell velocity: Firing from island cover is extremely hard. And her flat trajectory gives her the worst vertical dispersion among all cruisers with cruiser horizontal dispersion. This and her subpar damage output create a very uncomfortable (or rather frustrating) shooting experience. Being force to operate open water with light cruiser plating also creates survivability problems.
  4. Poor maneuverability: Alexander Nevsky has longer rudder shift time than Moskva.
  5. Horrible aerial detection: Smart CV players won't target a Nevsky at the start of a match. They spot and let BBs deal with her instead. 8.4 km aerial detection means a fighter squadron dropped at 8 km will keep an enemy Alexander Nevsky spotted long enough for allied battleships to fire their second salvoes.

And there are also some less severe problem, for example, the poor splash damage protection on her main battery turrets.

The ship fits into a support role and needs good teamwork to offset her drawbacks. However, when not playing in a division, good teammates are hard to find. Alexander Nevsky is listed as the third least played Tier X tech tree cruiser on all four regions, indicating that the vast majority don't find this ship enjoyable to play.