Corinthian Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I played one RB game with the Mutsuki. It felt different from other games. Seemed like you are in a hurry to win, and there's added tension or something like that, I dunno. It was fun though and it seemed that the players were better - or at least the players on my team were better, as we won with only one loss IIRC. My Mutsuki DD managed to sink one or two ships and was on its way to help sink the enemy CV when we won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Carriers? Not really unless very good, as there is a lot of cruisers who effectively negate them. Cruisers... Yes, as long as they stay focused. Destroyers are actually decisive for fight for cap, but need support from the heavy units or they just die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Allowing DDs to kill friendlies that do not support could improve the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Allowing DDs to kill friendlies that do not support could improve the game. :D :D +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 I was in a battle with me using Mutsuki. I was chasing away a Nagato and Fuso. I then see my map and my team mates have abandoned me. WTF?!!?!?!?!?! Thanks to Mutsuki's slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow torpedoes, the Nagato managed to evade all of my salvoes (I think I fired twenty torps total - and NOT A SINGLE ONE CONNECTED!!!!!!!!!). Edited October 13, 2015 by Corinthian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Well, the Mutsuki torps (stock ones especially) are best treated as mines, area denial... If you want hit, you have to come in close. Sims 8km torps are pretty good for RB though, they are so slow you can almost overtake them on boost but they reload quickly and again, they are a fine area denial weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Allowing DDs to kill friendlies that do not support could improve the game. :D :D +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 I was in a battle with me using Mutsuki. I was chasing away a Nagato and Fuso. I then see my map and my team mates have abandoned me. WTF?!!?!?!?!?! Thanks to Mutsuki's slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow torpedoes, the Nagato managed to evade all of my salvoes (I think I fired twenty torps total - and NOT A SINGLE ONE CONNECTED!!!!!!!!!). Well, there was that time that, in Mutsuki, I went chasing after three friendly Clevelands that decided going 2 line was a good idea in that map (it is not). After some encouragement in chat, and several near misses with torpedoes (and one hit), they decided to follow my lead. We won. But still could not understand how they decided to follow instead of the usual response of insulting in chat. Also, I think Mutsuki is one of the best DDs for ranked - she has the lowest detectability, coupled with pretty decent torpedoes. Arty is nothing to write home about, but against cripples any gun is good enough. There was that game that I finished 3 ships with Mutsuki's guns. Edited October 13, 2015 by sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I rarely use the guns on Japanese DDs. They are horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Mutsuki top guns are great, pity there is just 2 of them But already had battle where, with Mutsuki, I won gun duel with definitely not crippled Farragut and Mutsuki, finishing off another Mutsuki and a cruiser... I think I scored one torp hit only in that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Carriers? Not really unless very good, as there is a lot of cruisers who effectively negate them. Cruisers... Yes, as long as they stay focused. Destroyers are actually decisive for fight for cap, but need support from the heavy units or they just die. If they are good you win, if they are bad your team has a wasted spot and the enemy team has free points. They are pretty decisive. At least a bad battleship can kill an imprudent DD, a bad CV just does nothing. Edited October 13, 2015 by RETAC21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Carriers? Not really unless very good, as there is a lot of cruisers who effectively negate them. Cruisers... Yes, as long as they stay focused. Destroyers are actually decisive for fight for cap, but need support from the heavy units or they just die. If they are good you win, if they are bad your team has a wasted spot and the enemy team has free points. They are pretty decisive. At least a bad battleship can kill an imprudent DD, a bad CV just does nothing. It does. It just sits there and screams "HALP!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Any chance or possibility that they (the developers) would ever consider including nation fleet battles, so each team consisting of ships from only a single navy tree rather than only mix of all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Fredriksson Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Was tried in Wot. Failed. Disappeared. But I like the idea. Perhaps more doable in Wows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 Doubt it would be any better. The game isn't balanced for nation vs nation battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Never understood why it failed in WoT, i did play a number of these battles and found them to be more fun than the ordinary ones, six TOGs on the same side, damn that was a fun battle! It might not be better, but it would be nice to try something else than the museum ship/tank collection parade with one of each that battles usually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Fredriksson Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Skywalkre can elaborate. But placing US tanks with vision range against RU without, could be one-sided.Would like to see the official reason for closing it down though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 In WoWs it would be placing fast but fragile, high Alpha, vs. slower and protected gunfighters. Last tiem we tried it in historical battles (doing the 1st night battle off Guadalcanal), US won every time as the assorted Bensons, Mahans and Fletchers just murdered Kageros and Fubukis thanks to turret rotation speed and then it was just question of surrounding and spamming the Kongos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 BTW, are there any decision about putting USN CL separate branch in game? True that perhaps only USN and RN could have a separate CL branch, but driving a Worcester could be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Well, Cleveland is kinda misplaced and there was buzzs about moving that repeatedly, last on a RU stream around Gamescom.. I guess that with unnerfed AA it could easily survive as VIII. Then you get Brooklyn to balance out Myoko as VII, you need something in between Cleveland and Worcester (Fargo?) and replacement at Tier VI. Or arrange it in any other way, but yes, actually Britain has more chance of getting to tier X in CL than in CA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Counting paper designs there should be plenty of CLs for the taking, but for some nations you will have to go until the 50s. Cleveland and Portland should be switched around as they stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a77 Posted August 20, 2016 Share Posted August 20, 2016 Any chance or possibility that they (the developers) would ever consider including nation fleet battles, so each team consisting of ships from only a single navy tree rather than only mix of all? They did in World of Tanks, a Stalingrad scenario, it turned out that Russian tanks was so superior to German tanks so they scraped it....it is much easier to hide the lack of balance if you mix team..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Fredriksson Posted August 20, 2016 Share Posted August 20, 2016 Yep. Hellcats vs KV-1S' on open map. Balanced? Hell yea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) Generally IIRC statistically TEAM AMERICA! dominated almost any non-city map. Edited August 21, 2016 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingCanOpener Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 I seem to remember the Germans did exceptionally well at Tier 10 mainly due to Waffentraeger E-100s being en masse in those battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) They were big targets w/o camo rating however, so if opponents had competent spotters things ended bad for them quickly... Edited August 22, 2016 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingCanOpener Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 True, but I remember in NA they did well because there would be so many in the queue that you'd end up with 6-7 of them slinging 320+ APCR with E-100s and a token E-50M. I steered far clear of those battles. The issue WoWS has that by the end of the war the US was so far ahead of everyone in terms of design that at high tiers you're stuck buffing everyone to ludicrous levels or handwaving some napkin designs into relevance. The Soviets weren't a blue-water fleet, the Germans kinda stopped at Plan Z, the Japanese peaked around 1943-44, the Royal Navy stopped at Vanguard for BB's, and the French/Italians ditched follow-up BB designs for various reasons. I remember when I played the Japanese carriers matched up against the Essex was essentially overbuffed to the point it had no resemblance to reality. Of course, the Essex had gimped air group setups that had no resemblance to reality either. Still never understood why you had SBD's with Hellcats when the SB2C would have made more sense. *sigh* Still have over 15k gold and 6 months of premium for the game I haven't touched. 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