Yep, just making bots reward the same is the best solution.
It’s why coastal economy sucks as much as it does imo. Because you get loads of bot kills
1 Like
i am nearly there but i am only playing when i have a good rp or sl booster
I’ve just gotten arrow. But can’t bring myself to play it much at the moment. But I want to get coastal sorted just incase they add a cool frigate like a type 21.
well i would love for them to add the homing to the torps as they are kinda useless
but i am going for terra nova then stoping as it is the only cool looking and it seems to be a very anti plane focused ship
I don’t think there is the information you want. I visited National Archives a few weeks ago and checked the handbook of Hood’s 15" Mount there. Many nice technical drawings but no information regarding loading cycles. I would suppose the handbook for 16" mount to be the same.
1 Like
Good title
The Perth-class destroyer would be a cool addition as all most all of its weapons are in the game with only the anti sub weapons and the Phalanx not being fitted to ships and posibly the torps. that and the type 82 destroyer would be nice counter parts to bravy
Ok I will have a look with this one in my next visit
2 Likes
very nice
Thats awsome, while you are there, the reload cycle for the 14 inch guns should be described in ADM234/271
could you also as a personal request note the pages with the technical drawings of the 14inch mounts so that i can order a copy since i’m currently thinking about using them for a bachelor thesis
1 Like
Holy moly. The response for this
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/zKDe2LeJjXdP?comment=NiHuGQ6iUgPLIx8VrKFHyGX8
Apparently the fact that an entire salvo can miss by miles and miles despite data saying it shouldn’t but apparently that is correct
So looks like we will be cursed with terrible accuracy for all time. I hope we get BR reduction for our top tier ships to compensate then.
Actual joke of a dev team working on the naval development like wtf are they thinking with rejecting it because one book disagrees with the truth of the guns being miles more accurate irl
I could accept if they did not believe the data matched 1 for 1 due to different parameters but to argue that having 4x the dispersal is correct is truly beyond words.
The fact British ships are destined to miss salvo after salvo due to shell dispersal alone, and yet Scharnhorst can continue to operate with laser guided shells is truly beyond me
1 Like
Well the more annoying thing is they have denied it of the calculations in a book not actual test and trials data
1 Like
Of course. Secondary sources can be used to deny buffs but not for buffs
Developers plan to improve the accuracy of this gun but this will be done along with all other guns in a major rework of ballistics parameters in a future major update.
I had discussed with developers in a great depth about this report. The information you provided had been included in my internal suggestions of major accuracy rework so there’s no need to landslide on this. Also I have to point out that you guys had misinterpreted this document in some way. While it is true that the gun is supposed to be more accurate than it is now but it’s not as much as 4 times as claimed in the report.
5 Likes
Well it feels slightly dishonest to label it as not a bug as it gives the impression that they should not be historically accurate