Project45_Opytny Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 11 minutes ago, invicta2012 said: She's Leander (well, Achilles) without "X" Turret but might be a bit powerful for Tier V; she's very close to being Huang He a tier lower, which might be problematic. As she is named as "Delhi" and placed at T5, and Hobart with 8 guns is at T6, there is little doubt on her configuration from the beginning. What interests me is that WG seems to be... really serious on her model, that it hasn't completed till now and testing would have to be carried on a temporary placeholder. Especially considering she was once mentioned as part of a promotional scheme intended for Indian gamers (which seems to be abandoned soon afterwards, with Mysore as the only successful outcome from it), and now she is still suffering from a protracted modelling development. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invicta2012 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said: What interests me is that WG seems to be... really serious on her model, that it hasn't completed till now and testing would have to be carried on a temporary placeholder. Especially considering she was once mentioned as part of a promotional scheme intended for Indian gamers (which seems to be abandoned soon afterwards, with Mysore as the only successful outcome from it), and now she is still suffering from a protracted modelling development. WG said at the time that they wanted the model of Delhi to be accurate as to how the ship was when it served in the INS - presumably their new art department has not hit the mark on that one, as there would be considerable differences between her and any of the existing Leanders. The same is true of Uganda, which had a very different bridge arrangement to Fiji or Coronel Bolognesi and which seemed to be delayed while they got the design sorted. Edited January 4 by invicta2012 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: The people who are going to be most salty about this are the ones who rage-dumped all their one-shot camos after the change instead of hoarding them against possible future need, and who now have no camo profiles in their ports. I dumped them all for credits. I'm not interested in what WG is selling in with this latest iteration of camos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utt_Bugglier Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 hours ago, Asym said: Any advice about getting rid of what I stored? Easy: see what the forced removal compensation will be, and then decide whether it’s better to sell in advance of the build that removes them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beleaf Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Already testing out which ships look great in Tokyo game show 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor_Moon Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, HogHammer said: CHANGES TO SUBMARINES AND ASW, EXTERIOR SYSTEM UPDATE, AIRSHIP ESCORT AND MORE - CLOSED TEST 13.1 Link: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/505 3 hours ago, HogHammer said: NEW SHIPS - CLOSED TEST 13.1 Link: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/504 1 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor_Moon Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: The people who are going to be most salty about this are the ones who rage-dumped all their one-shot camos after the change instead of hoarding them against possible future need, and who now have no camo profiles in their ports. Camo boxes officially have new use 😍 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invicta2012 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 36 minutes ago, tfcas119 said: With torps seen from orbit and zero gunpower to speak of, and a terrible concealment for a torpboat. Buffed garbage is still garbage. "zero gunpower"? That's a bit Angry YouTuber. You might not like the ship, but it really isn't as bad as all the people who don't own it say it is. 42 minutes ago, tfcas119 said: Minegumo has pre buff Yudachi torps that won't hit anything or 6.5km sucide torps. Again, Angry YouTuber opinions. Yugumo has those F3s at Tier IX but she can't switch out to longer range torps if needed. Minegumo may not be the bestest ship ever but I like the concept. 50 minutes ago, tfcas119 said: and Jupiter does not have Druid style AP. Zero pen to deal with cruisers or BBs, no reduced fuse arming or arming threshold to arm on DD hulls, and nowhere near enough DPM to compensate I meant AP only. Druid is the only AP only RN DD we have, until now. Jupiter '42 will have the same improved ricochet angles as Jutland and Daring on a larger calibre (120mm rather than 113). That said, I'm not sure WG have quite go this ship right, yet, and I hope to see some adjustments to her balance before she's released. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor_Moon Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 3 hours ago, Snargfargle said: Increasing the airstrike range of the Massachusetts to nearly that of its powerful secondaries would make it an OP sub killer. I'm already sinking a sub every three or four matches with it. An extra 2 km airstrike will be quite nice though. What about Musashi though? What would the excuse be for Musashi, when THUNDERER of all ships got the full ASW range? 🤔 That said, I AM happy to see legit ASW range improvements here. 👍 Edited January 4 by Sailor_Moon 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utt_Bugglier Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 hours ago, Crokodone said: Which is bazaar,… Speaking of bizarre… 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 25 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said: What about Musashi though? What would the excuse be for Musashi, when THUNDERER of all ships got the full ASW range? 🤔 That said, I AM happy to see legit ASW range improvements here. 👍 WG wants to continue to drive away LWM, and they know that inconsistencies like this are her kryptonite? 1 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor_Moon Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 16 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: WG wants to continue to drive away LWM, and they know that inconsistencies like this are her kryptonite? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verytis Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) Ngl, I thought superlite CLs might get a break after Cerberus only got 203mm. But now it seems quad-barrel turrets with overmatch, on cruisers, are gonna be a new norm. As for the ASW changes... 2 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said: What about Musashi though? What would the excuse be for Musashi, when THUNDERER of all ships got the full ASW range? 🤔 That said, I AM happy to see legit ASW range improvements here. 👍 GC, Massa and Musashi are the only ones that keep the gimped ASW. Thunderer actually got nerfed once in the past. GC and Musashi makes sense as being the most well known problematic BBs. I'm more intrigued Ohio is getting proper ASW while Massa doesn't. Both are similar and still relatively busted for their tiers. Suspect it has to do with numbers of them, and distribution methods. Massa is unavailable. Ohio is a RB ship. Edited January 5 by Verytis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore135 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, Verytis said: Ngl, I thought superlite CLs might get a break after Cerberus only got 203mm. But now it seems quad-barrel turrets with overmatch, on cruisers, are gonna be a new norm. As for the ASW changes... GC, Massa and Musashi are the only ones that keep the gimped ASW. Thunderer actually got nerfed once in the past. GC and Musashi makes sense as being the most well known problematic BBs. I'm more intrigued Ohio is getting proper ASW while Massa doesn't. Both are similar and still relatively busted for their tiers. Suspect it has to do with numbers of them, and distribution methods. Massa is unavailable. Ohio is a RB ship. Remember that after abandoning the attempt to rebalance GC, WG formalized their position on which ships are “protected” from direct nerfs: older premium ships (those released before that time) that were also sold directly for cash or doubloons (“real money”) at some time. GC and MA were previously sold directly for cash/doubloons, meaning that in regards to WG’s current position they clearly fall into the “will not directly nerf” category along with many other older premium ships. It’s no surprise that the devs are being stingy with the buffs, as they can’t easily dial back the changes if they end up being too much without inviting backlash from the community. Ohio and Thunderer are tier X special ships (not premiums) and have only ever been available for in-game currency. They meet neither of the two criteria that are both required to be covered by the aforementioned “protection” from balancing. Thunderer has been directly nerfed in the past, as have other such ships like Stalingrad and Ragnar. Musashi is in a bit of a grey area: she’s an older premium that wasn’t sold directly for cash/doubloons before her removal from regular availability (which would put her in the same category as Flint, which has been adjusted as the devs saw fit), but she has been sold directly for doubloons in the auction (twice) since. It could be argued that this means she (as well as Nelson) should be protected from balancing. However, WG could also argue that the auction is some kind of special case and doesn’t count, as it didn’t exist at the time the “rules” were formalized. Not everyone will accept this reasoning, but enough may be mollified to blunt the PR backlash of directly nerfing the ship. My guess is that the devs don’t want to open that can of worms unless they absolutely have to. They are being conservative with the buff to Musashi for similar reasons they are being conservative with GC and MA. Edited January 5 by Nevermore135 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor_Moon Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 51 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said: My guess is that the devs don’t want to open that can of worms unless they absolutely have to. They are being conservative with the buff to Musashi for similar reasons they are being conservative with GC and MA. Yeah, I think this is most likely the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armory Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 10 hours ago, Crokodone said: No where in that devblog does it say temporary camo is being removed. To the contrary, it's being upgraded to be used as a permanent camo, regardless of ship. yes, they are improving camouflage. from temporary to permanent. for gold . and .... the final 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethervox Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, armory said: yes, they are improving camouflage. from temporary to permanent. for gold Improving for gold? The only way I will buy any camo for gold is if it gives a permanent bonus in some manner. I'm sure not getting any camo for gold if all it does is somehow look good to the eye (some camos are completely horrid). I will simply run my ships in basic grey except for those who already have some perma camo that looks better (or to cover those Spanish ships who have the giant flag plastered on their hull - what's with 'that'?). Edited January 5 by Aethervox 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WES_HoundDog Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Ok so i kind of veered off course when i got to the bottom of the new ship list where it said the appearance of Uganda was announced in the previous devblog. I nosed around in that devblog and, well. Anyone else get a good laugh when noticing the Spanish tier 9 BB 15 inch AP shells do more damage than the Bungos'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 6 hours ago, armory said: for gold And for credits if you wish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 3 hours ago, WES_HoundDog said: Ok so i kind of veered off course when i got to the bottom of the new ship list where it said the appearance of Uganda was announced in the previous devblog. I nosed around in that devblog and, well. Anyone else get a good laugh when noticing the Spanish tier 9 BB 15 inch AP shells do more damage than the Bungos'? Is there a significant difference in the projectiles (weight, fuse-time) or the muzzle velocity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 6 hours ago, Aethervox said: those Spanish ships who have the giant flag plastered on their hull - what's with 'that'?). It was a historical hi-vis paint scheme for WW2. Spain was neutral but at risk of her ships being misidentified and attacked by any side... Hence the big flag paintjob. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwastuesday Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 So even more submarine buffs than teased. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Project45_Opytny Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 13 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: It was a historical hi-vis paint scheme for WW2. Spain was neutral but at risk of her ships being misidentified and attacked by any side... Hence the big flag paintjob. Neutrality marks. Dunkerque and Strasbourg are also modelled with neutrality stripes amidships, though in retrospect Swedish Pan-European ships may also been modelled as such (like the stripes on Karl Johan XIV) but aren't mostly. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 hour ago, Itwastuesday said: So even more submarine buffs than teased. Lol. What did we expect? After all, WG still want them to be played... The catch-22 of balancing by popularity in the matchmaker... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwastuesday Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 26 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: What did we expect? After all, WG still want them to be played... The catch-22 of balancing by popularity in the matchmaker... I expected glue huffing and got it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now