@Game Masters
Does one of you play naval, to be able to explain it to this man whom will not listen?
So rather than use the actual soyuz thread it developed into this here, ok then
He is right tho in this one,given i am killing the named bots aswell in naval and there is no way its 0.06 while the highest would be 1.6 overall.
1 Like
Same question then, what does the aforementioned AI index show.
1 Like
Good question,given overall numbers top is 0.45 while last month top is 1.6. Probably floatplanes that are shot down by ships when not controlled by player. Or coastal artillery in naval EC.
1 Like
Honestly this makes the most sense given how bot ships give the same reward as actual players now
1 Like
They also count into BP challenges as normal players aswell as daily tasks.
1 Like
Yeah, hence why i think you’re correct in thinking that
1 Like
I find that hard to believe. Theres no indication that named bots are now counted as players and are not tracked by the AI index.
Sole post mentioning anything in regard to naval bots is this one:
which talks about named bots counting towards battle task requirements.
1 Like
Bots = player kills
In the one game mode where you have to protect a fleet, that is to my knowledge the only bots that count for your bot index.
If you still don’t believe it, call smin, or stona, or someone here to slap some sense into you.
Missile carriers won’t have the penetration neccessary to reliably sink BBs.
Its an interesting topic. Armored warships became obsolete after WW2. So, the warheads of all common anti ship missiles have no armor piercing capabilities.
I remember Tornado IDS Marine with 4 Komoran anti-ship missiles before Gajin updated Air RB map assets. There you regularly encountered WW2 cruisers, if I remember correctly Brooklyn class CLs on a certain map. The results of 4 Komoran hits were not exactly stellar. Post WW2 ASM’s were just HE ones.
Vice versa WW2 shells would be most likely lethal to all these post-WW2 metal tincans. Especially when you consider that the ammo is easily to detonate, as most ru ships use on-deck launchers. Moskva also badly suffered to detonating ASM launchers.
Have you ever seen an anti ship missile? They’re quite devastating.
and yes a bb could take out a missile carrier… if it’s in range, and if it’s not being smart by moving.
why is anyone defending the Soyuz (that was never fully built, it was some scrap in a dry dock the whole war) is beyond me.
in the patchnote post of all places. Can the Bias denyers go elsewhere so bug discussion isnt swamped out
3 Likes
Man, I think that ship has already sailed. See what I did there? :)
1 Like
It varies from missile to missile. Most of them are HE or SAP-HE. Top attack terminal flight profiles also will help to deal damage to ships with heavy armor. Modern ships also have increased compartmentalization and system redundancy to compensate for lack of armor. Probably wouldn’t help in the game, but IRL being able to use the second or third systems for when the first is destroyed is better than hiding that system behind ultra thick armor.
To ships without armor that are usually fairly small, yes. We have yet to really see the effect a large AShM does to a vintage BB with heavy thick vertical protection. Considering Soviet missiles are usually SAP-HE or HE and have low or no reloads, a battleship acting as missile sponge to absorb the alpha strike from an enemy fleet is a viable tactic. Especially if that battleship has self defense against missiles too. (GW refit for Iowa class)
okey come play with any flanker against my any f16 blk15-20 with aim120 xD
The problem mostly is Br compression and not the plane itself.
1 Like
Both are good.
2s25 is okay. I literally just spaded the T64B the other day, and it’s better, it’s on the low end of the good category though. I think was only good because I was squared up.