World of Warships

[CountDeMoney]

Oh, let's not worry about little details like that.

[Berkut]

I just had a weird little moment.

An enemy player made a comment in chat along the lines of "Well <FirstName>. Your attitude sucks and you should try being a bit less of a drag on your team..." etc., etc., etc.

The <FirstName> he used was MY first name, which of course is not my user name. And the way he said it...fuck it sounded just like how Seedy talks to me! I swear I thought it was him, and he recognized my username (Berkutt) and was giving me shit.

But then I realized there was a player on the other team who had a user name with their actual first name in it. Weird little moment.

[grumbler]

You think that's annoying?  The ultimate strategy for battleships is:  Getting your T crossed.  The game calculates armour in such a way that by turning bow on you not only present a smaller target, but also are more likely to have enemy shells glance off you.  If you don't present your armoured belt, it cannot be penetrated, or so the thinking goes.  It's an arcade game, with only the loosest historical and technical grounding.

Yes.  I think that the game ignores the fact that the 'belt" when hit end-on is, in fact, a much weaker bulkhead.  Bismarck had a 320mm belt, but the bulkheads forward and aft were mostly 145mm (220mm in front of the magazine).  So, what is the best strategy in the game is the nightmare for actual period naval officers (and that's ignoring the fact that shell ballistic error was mostly in range, not bearing, so that a ship end-on is much easier to hit).  I can't bring myself to support that.

[Berkut]

I was wondering why that was the case - I don't much care for the purposes of the game, as the ranges and firing rate and hit rate are all absracted enough that the naval theme is plenty enough for me. And in fact, it is certainly a better *game*, since it creates a lot more incentive to maneuver, rather than just form line of battle and blast away.

But I did wonder why it was the case that you would NOT want to present as small and angled a target as possible in naval warfare. Giving the other side a clean shot at the largest possible apparent target seems like a bad idea. But that makes a lot more sense. The very reason the belt is so heavily armored is SO you can in fact give them that shot, which is better than the alternative of presenting the more weakly armored head or tail of the belt, and the "length" of the ship to hit (which would also make it a lot easier to smash up the relatively unarmored superstructure)

I assume you cannot armor the ends simply because they, by definition, need to have all kinds of things passing through them - passageways, shafts, etc., etc?

[CountDeMoney]

I just had a weird little moment.

An enemy player made a comment in chat along the lines of "Well <FirstName>. Your attitude sucks and you should try being a bit less of a drag on your team..." etc., etc., etc.

The <FirstName> he used was MY first name, which of course is not my user name. And the way he said it...fuck it sounded just like how Seedy talks to me! I swear I thought it was him, and he recognized my username (Berkutt) and was giving me shit.

But then I realized there was a player on the other team who had a user name with their actual first name in it. Weird little moment.

Heh.  Weird indeed, but
1) I wouldn't address you by your name
2) I wouldn't type that much
3) without a shitload of profanity
4) like when HVC runs into the one fucking rock in the middle of the desert CAME OUTTA NOWHERE DID IT DUMBASS

[HVC]

The rocks were camouflaged lol

[CountDeMoney]

Of course they were.  Desert camo pattern.

[grumbler]

I was wondering why that was the case - I don't much care for the purposes of the game, as the ranges and firing rate and hit rate are all absracted enough that the naval theme is plenty enough for me. And in fact, it is certainly a better *game*, since it creates a lot more incentive to maneuver, rather than just form line of battle and blast away.

But I did wonder why it was the case that you would NOT want to present as small and angled a target as possible in naval warfare. Giving the other side a clean shot at the largest possible apparent target seems like a bad idea. But that makes a lot more sense. The very reason the belt is so heavily armored is SO you can in fact give them that shot, which is better than the alternative of presenting the more weakly armored head or tail of the belt, and the "length" of the ship to hit (which would also make it a lot easier to smash up the relatively unarmored superstructure)

I assume you cannot armor the ends simply because they, by definition, need to have all kinds of things passing through them - passageways, shafts, etc., etc?

The ends were not armored as well because the situations where they would face perpendicular fire (i.e. from ahead or astern) would be so rare that it would be a waste of weight better spent elsewhere.  Lighter armor was acceptable because shots against the bulkheads would be highly oblique, thus giving the armor greater effective resistance.

A bean target isn't really smaller than an end-on target, given that the ship's entire width is exposed to end-on fire (remember that the shells are dropping at a fairly steep angle except at close ranges) and that directors are much more accurate at bearings than ranges (which is why shell patterns are down the same bearing but in a range ladder).  Shellfire is actually pretty accurate after the first few salvos (unknown external effects on shell flight like upper winds and air density are deduced by the way the first few salvos differ in impact from their predicted impact, and internal factors like cold barrels no longer apply).  What stops every shell from hitting is range uncertainty, some slight ballistics, and target maneuvers. The way West Virginia crushed Yamashiro at Surigao Strait with her first salvo illustrates what happens when radar makes ranging more accurate

[HVC]

Of course they were.  Desert camo pattern.

You're the one who kept running off a cliff on that one map

[CountDeMoney]

Of course they were.  Desert camo pattern.

You're the one who kept running off a cliff on that one map

Trying to get air Dukes of Hazzard-style is no sin, especially when I would rather suicide before I give someone a kill.

#NoOneShallWieldExcaliburButMe

[HVC]

Say what you want, you had fun playing arty together

[Berkut]

The match started with a mass of BBs and cruisers all jammed together. I think like 3 ran into each other, in a group of 5. My first 6 torpedoes all got hits, and I didn't even have to aim at any specific ship, just fired them into the mass....

[MadBurgerMaker]

I can't see your image, Berk.  You sink all three?

I got my first TK marker yesterday for not sinking anyone.  Friendly Gneisenau was broadside to me and lined up just right so the tag of the red guy I was looking at over there looked like it was him.  40,000+ damage in one long range salvo on some number of citadel hits from the Dunkerque.  Dropped them right in there.  Oops.    Burned through that real quick in co-op getting those easy 400 hit, 50,000 fire damage, 15 destroyed module type achievements.

[Berkut]

No, I don't think I sank any of the ships I initially hit, at least not immediately. Ended up with just two kills.

The interesting/bragging part was the 126,000 damage, 9 torpedo hits, 214 gun hits...in a Tier 3 G-101.

[MadBurgerMaker]

German destroyers are fun then? Or is that a one off kind of thing?