SmirkingGerbil

WoWs makes me better at WoT, teaches me what I did wrong in WoT

46 posts in this topic

So I like this game. A lot.

I went in tentatively, spent no money whatsoever (other than premium carry over from WoT), and only ground one line (Fascist Boats) based on research, and have no garage slots! :trump:

German line, DD's, CA's and BB's. Here is what I have learned and why I like this game so much at tier IV so far:

1.) I don't rage, at all. In WoT I still have spittle flying out and sticking on my screen. In WoWs I am chill, I am completely different, I ask questions, I work with my team.

2.) I run no mods. I have no idea if my team is potatoe or uni, I work with the team. In WoT I run XVM without win chance, but still make assumptions and react accordingly. I am going to uninstall XVM in WoT, it is liberating in WoWs to have no preset bias working in regards to your team.

3.) The armor profile on the Kaiser allows you to sail straight at the enemy and eat damage all day due to thick armor on the front turret, citadel etc. Even broadside with the second upgraded hull she is strong, secondaries rage hard, this thing is a damage dealing hellion. Yes I am aware of the German BB reputation.

4.) I run German DD's which are hard to play, but I am now going to buy garage slots and go up the American DD line.

5.) Run German CA's which I like also, but man you have to manage your range and have a plan to run if it gets hot.

6.) Again, it is like there are two SmirkingGerbil's. The WoT Psycho rager, angry almost every match, typing into chat "Are you morons playing by rolling your face on the keyboard or what???". The WoWs Gerbil doesn't say much, asks questions, and just sighs when the occasional teammate baddy shoots me for no damn good reason.

7.) WoWs pace is different, yet teamwork is king. Every match I type "Plan? Group up?" and amazingly it cascades into a group decision. Somebody pinch me, is this for real? Does WoWs have a better community, or all they all burnt on WoT like me and we want the experience to be better?

I think this game is going to steal more of my time and gold from WoT, and I am happy about it.

Too bad they reversed on the "Gold economy across all games", that sucks.

 

Edited by SmirkingGerbil
fixed CV nomenclature to CA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually cruisers are referred to as CA or CL, German cruisers are the heavy variety so they would be CA's.  British cruisers are of the light variety, so they would be CL's.  Carriers are called CV's in the US Navy lexicon, and even though I went to the Naval Academy back in the 80's - I couldn't tell you why off the top of my head.

To your main point, I couldn't agree more, it is much more strategic game and having a team work together is far more likely to insure a team victory than just the extreme skill of a few players.  That being said, 3 really good players in the same division with comms and top tier is going to really shape the match do to the lower overall number of ships per match.

Glad you are stress free so far - do what it takes to keep it that way.   :bigdoge:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly WOWS does make me much better at WOT, It makes me not play that POS game (AKA Arty)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To further clarify Biggie, CL's are typically armed with 6" MB, and are very lightly armoured, such as Konigsberg and Nurnberg, whereas CA's are typically armed with 8" MB, and have much better protection, at the expense of mobility. Ships like the Pensacola are still CA's despite being terribly protected, and Kirov/Molotov/DM Donskoi are considered CA's due to their extremely powerful, but smaller calibre guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And DDs are big, soft and bouncy, but firmer for newer models. It's a navy thing, don't worry about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive noticed something similar while playing wot on a different account. Maybe its just that you are not obsessed about performing in wows? I like to think that im not a stat whore in wot but i do want to play my best game every game in wot ever since i realized that you can improve and that wr is not luck. Maybe its something similar in your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the balance between tiers, ships and classes is a bit better in WoWs than tanks. In WoWs even when you are at a disadvantage there's usually something you can do to provide damage or spotting for your team whereas in WoT there are just some match ups or scenarios where no amount of skill can help you. (Like driving an AT-2 in a tier 7 game for example.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the stock grinds are usually less painful, usually. Looking at you Fuso/Nagato/Amagi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SoliDeoGloria said:

And the stock grinds are usually less painful, usually. Looking at you Fuso/Nagato/Amagi

So what are the trade offs, pros/cons of say the Japanese BB vs. the German BB line? I seem to do better in BB's, but I like to fancy myself a DD wizard . . . in my own mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SmirkingGerbil said:

So what are the trade offs, pros/cons of say the Japanese BB vs. the German BB line? I seem to do better in BB's, but I like to fancy myself a DD wizard . . . in my own mind.

Germans don't get citadelled much, but in exchange take the same amount of damage in penetrations, the have relatively derpy guns, and secondaries that spam all HE. IJN are a bit more mobile, and have similar secondaries, but a large number fire AP, which is nearly worthless. IMO the germans are a bit of a crutch line, with a lot of placebo that they're more durable because they don't get hit with citadels often. The IJN line will be more rewarding to a skilled player, but in exchange is harder to play well. Germans excel at 10km and under, in secondary range, while IJN, like USN, will do better in the 11-15km ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SoliDeoGloria said:

The IJN line will be more rewarding to a skilled player, but in exchange is harder to play well. Germans excel at 10km and under, in secondary range, while IJN, like USN, will do better in the 11-15km ranges.

This will make stealth builds a more viable approach for German Captains to avoid a lot of gun fire when closing the gap to under 10 km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xWulffx said:

This will make stealth builds a more viable approach for German Captains to avoid a lot of gun fire when closing the gap to under 10 km.

But a stealth/secondary build takes the max amount of points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True you'll have to decide between IFHE and manual secondary control, but its possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, xWulffx said:

True you'll have to decide between IFHE and manual secondary control, but its possible

TBH, Manual secondaries is better than IFHE for secondary builds. the accuracy buff is just far too useful at tier 7+

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and that tier 2 mod you can buy gives another -20% bonus to dispersion as well, because you can have all the IFHE you want but it means nothing if your secondaries shoot like a blunderbuss at 100 m! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BiggieD61 said:

Carriers are called CV's in the US Navy lexicon, and even though I went to the Naval Academy back in the 80's - I couldn't tell you why off the top of my head.

actually stands for Crusier, because the first Carriers were envisioned as part of the Cruising Group
V stands for 'Carrier Aviation', but really the V is from 'Voler', the French verb meaning 'to fly', but it means 'Fixed-Wing Aircraft' in practice (when no additional designation is present)

CV: Fleet aircraft carrier (1921-1975), multi-purpose (1975-) aircraft carrier
CV(N): Just used in 1944 to signify it was fitted and used for Night running/flights.
+A : Attack (merged into CV on 30 June 1975)
+N : Nuclear (+AN merged into +N on same date)
+B : Large (USS Midway Class), merged into CVA in 1952
+H : Helicopter 
+HA: Helicopter Amphibious.
+L: Light Aircraft Carrier (complement of approx 30-34 aircraft during WWII, faster than an escort carrier as they were indended to be deployed alongside Fleet Carriers rather than providing support for convoys and amphibious ops)

AC: You'd think they'd use this for Aircraft Carrier, but they already had an Auxilliary Collier (coal supply ship), so they were stuffed
CA: Backup name was already taken by Heavy Cruisers (Cruiser / Assault). 

A Note On Escort Carriers

About 1/3-1/2 the size of their big cousins, they were cheap and easy to produce in comparison. These didn't have much protection so got smashed everywhere - 122/151 aircraft carriers built in WWII were of this class but none survive. Retired as a type/class by US Navy after the Korean War, as helicopter-deck frigates took over their duties and could keep hunting subs. Guilded missile launchers took over the aircraft protection role and in-flight refueling meant floating stopover points for transport/patrol aircrafter weren't so frequent. Bogue and Casablanca classes were most famous, Commencement Bay class was the last. In Vietnam these got taken out of mothballs and redesignated AKV (Air Transport Auxiliary). Once all major aircraft had refueling probes, they started flying the aircraft themselves.

Notable examples:

USS Thetis Bay (CVE-90, Casablanca class) was converted in May 1955 to CVHA-1 - she was the first Helicopter Attack Transport. CVHA stands for Combustible, Vulnerable, Heavy and Expendable. Jokes aside, it means Carrier Aviation Helicopter Amphibious (yuck), a complement to the Attack Transport ships, and supplemented landing craft to give the Navy and Marine Corps a vertical assault capability. 

May 1959 they redesignate her LPH-6 - although known as an Amphibious Assault Ship she suddenly became Landing Platform Helicopter to the battle group types, and formed the basis of the USS Iwo Jima design in her earlier iteration. It also means 'large helicopter carrier' in political documents (capable of carrying and deploying ~1800 assault troops using its own aircraft) - the Royal Navy called these Commando Carriers colloquially - now only HMS Ocean remains. USN have replaced this class with LHD (landing helicopter dock) and LHA (landing helicopter assault) as the stern dock and/or vertical lift to runway allow for safer and less maintenance-intensive travel with the same deployment in an 'attack' configuration, plus they can handle some planes (particularly VTOL aircraft and anti-submarine aircraft) when necessity hits.

She was part of the quarantine enforcement group during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, in 1963 helped with the Hurricane Flora disaster relief in Haiti, and in 1964...was decommissioned and sold for scrap.

USS Gilbert Islands (CVE-107, Commencement Bay class) had all her aircraft handling stuff taken out and four radio antennas (two directional, two omnidirectional) installed on her carrier deck. She had 24 radio transmitter trucks (covering VLF to UHF) bolted to the hanger deck, and became the USS Annapolis (AGMR-1) the first Auxiliary General Major Relay ship, or floating communications station. They added a hurricane bow, took out the WWII-era armament and stuck in four radar-controlled twin 3-inch 50 cal AA guns. In 1966 the crew converted the steam lines (from boiler to engine shaft) to cross-connect when necessary, in case of the need for dual-screw operation when maintenance or damage to a boiler occurred, and these modifications were carried out at Fleet Activities Sasebo to just about every ship still in service which could have them done!

She was the first sea vessel with satellite communications linking the Pacific and Washington (1966, which were installed off the coast of Vietnam after the equipment was late in delivery), and she sent the world's first ship-to-shore satellite radio message in late 1966, by which time she was basically flooded with communications relaying by surrounding ship and shore assets (55 days at sea between port calls until AGMR-2 USS Arlington joined her, except once a fortnight approx to get mail and transfer priority crew at Cam Ranh Bay). She provided rescue-at-sea operations and firefighting support as well. She was sailing for a port call to Perth in 1968 when she got emergency orders to return to Vietnam so USS Arlington could flank speed sail to support in the USS Pueblo incident, where AGER-2 (the Banner-class environmental research ship..Auxiliary...General...Environmental...Research) had been captured by North Korean forces with 83 crew members, one of whom was killed in the attack. Crew were abused and tortured for 11 months, one of the major incidents of the Cold War, and currently still posessed by North Korea, the only ship on the commissioned roster of the US Navy currently being held captive! It's at the Pyongyang Victorious War Museum, if you want to see it.

While she wasn't the first ship with Satellite Transmission capability (see the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Kingsport_(T-AG-164)), you can see why that couldn't be used for combat ops (30ft parabolic antenna in 53 foot radome, lol), she paved the way for future navy communications - it's worth remembering that the satellites at that time weren't geostationary but in a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) so only available for 5-15 minutes at a time, and gyroscopes were used to assist in tracking. This cut SITREP times from hours to minutes, which helped dramatically during engagements such as the Tet Offensive and Battle of Khe Sanh.

TL;DR. AC was taken, CA was taken, V means Voler in french. C actually means Cruiser not Carrier originally, if not NATOly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tigeh said:

actually stands for Crusier, because the first Carriers were envisioned as part of the Cruising Group
V stands for 'Carrier Aviation', but really the V is from 'Voler', the French verb meaning 'to fly', but it means 'Fixed-Wing Aircraft' in practice (when no additional designation is present)

What primary sourcing from the early days of American carriers have you seen that proves this?  I've seen it parroted often since playing this game, but I've never seen a single source for "Cruiser Voler" that was anything more than a Quora discussion or a forum comment.  Some obvious questions should pop into mind.  Why does CV have to be an acronym anyway?  BB is not an acronym, and neither is DD.  They're just hull classifications comprised of two letters.  How does the French language factor into an American hull designation?  I don't recall them being real pioneers of naval aviation.  This has all the makings of an internet legend that has popped up recently and been repeated as fact, owing to a lack of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mesrith said:

What primary sourcing from the early days of American carriers have you seen that proves this?  I've seen it parroted often since playing this game, but I've never seen a single source for "Cruiser Voler" that was anything more than a Quora discussion or a forum comment.  Some obvious questions should pop into mind.  Why does CV have to be an acronym anyway?  BB is not an acronym, and neither is DD.  They're just hull classifications comprised of two letters.  How does the French language factor into an American hull designation?  I don't recall them being real pioneers of naval aviation.  This has all the makings of an internet legend that has popped up recently and been repeated as fact, owing to a lack of evidence.

FWIW

The 1920 updated ship and aircraft nomenclature (two letter code for class/sub-class and a number designation) identified that ships without a sub class repeated the first letter so that is how BB and DD became part of the class/sub-class system but are not technically acronyms per se.

It also seems certain that the naval aircraft and squadron nomenclature designed at the same time were appropriated for the CV (Cruiser-Volplane ?) designation.  Arguably, the etymology of the V for volplane (or voler, but voler rings much more as internet myth) is still cloudy although volplane was a french "pop culture" word associated with aviation widely used in America at the time.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.php

Quote

On 17 July 1920, Acting Secretary of the Navy Robert E. Coontz approved a standardized system of alpha-numeric symbols to identify ship types such that all ships were now designated with a two letter code and a hull number, with the first letter being the ship type and the second letter being the sub-type. For example, the destroyer tender USS Melville, first commissioned as "Destroyer Tender No. 2" in 1915, was now re-designated as "AD-2" with the "A" standing for Auxiliary, the "D" for Destroyer (Tender) and the "2" meaning the second ship in that series. Ship types that did not have a sub-classification simply repeated the first letter. This meant that Battleships became "BB-X" and Destroyers became "DD-X" with X being the same number as previously assigned. Ships that changed classifications were given new hull numbers within their new designation series.

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/1025775/FID1977/NAVY/AVIATION/APP16.PDF

Quote

On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of naval vessels, including aircraft, in which lighter-than-air craft were identified by the type “Z” and heavier-than-air craft by the letter “V”.  Class letters assigned within the Z type were R, N and K for rigid dirigibles, non-rigid dirigibles and kite balloons respectively, while F, O, S, P, T and G were established for fighter, observation, scouting, patrol, torpedo and bombing, and Fleet planes as classes within the V type.  The use of the “V” designation with fix-wing heavier-than-air squadron designations has been a question of debate since the 1920s.  However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter “V” was chosen.  It is generally believed the “V” was in reference to the French word volplane. As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting surfaces (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by “Z”) used. The same case may be made regarding the use of “Z”.  It is generally believed the “Z” was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin, the German general and developer of the airship in 1900.  However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/volplane

Quote

Vol plané (meaning "gliding flight") was a phrase first used by 19th-century French ornithologists to describe downward flight by birds; it contrasted with "vol à voile" ("soaring flight"). Around the time Orville and Wilbur Wright were promoting their latest "aeroplane" in France, the noun and the verb "volplane" soared to popularity in America as terms describing the daring dives by aviators (Fly Magazine reported in 1910, "The French flyers are noted for their thrilling spirals and vol planes from the sky"). The avian-to-aviator generalization was fitting, since the Wright brothers had studied the flight of birds in designing their planes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:

On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of naval vessels, including aircraft, in which lighter-than-air craft were identified by the type “Z” and heavier-than-air craft by the letter “V”.  Class letters assigned within the Z type were R, N and K for rigid dirigibles, non-rigid dirigibles and kite balloons respectively, while F, O, S, P, T and G were established for fighter, observation, scouting, patrol, torpedo and bombing, and Fleet planes as classes within the V type.  The use of the “V” designation with fix-wing heavier-than-air squadron designations has been a question of debate since the 1920s.  However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter “V” was chosen.  It is generally believed the “V” was in reference to the French word volplane. As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting surfaces (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by “Z”) used. The same case may be made regarding the use of “Z”.  It is generally believed the “Z” was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin, the German general and developer of the airship in 1900.  However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption.

That's the money quote.  There are assumptions, but no facts.

It reminds of of the legendary "ninjato" sword.  One of my first jobs out of high school was managing a sword and novelty shop at the local mall.  There were plenty of customers that would come in and eagerly "explain" things to their friends and girlfriends, when they were really just repeating something cool that they'd heard, liked the explanation, but never thought to question whether it was actually true.  "Cruiser Voler" is up there with the the existence of a straight-bladed, square-tsuba ninja weapon.  It's interesting hearsay but lazy history.  I grant that it kinda makes sense, but I've still yet to see any actual sources for it, regardless of how many people treat it as a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mesrith said:

That's the money quote.  There are assumptions, but no facts.

snip

It's interesting hearsay but lazy history.  I grant that it kinda makes sense, but I've still yet to see any actual sources for it, regardless of how many people treat it as a fact.

Not sure what answer you want here...

A published source that indicates the origin " has been a question of debate since the 1920s" is pretty definitive that no explanation exists.  You either accept or decline the plausibility of the arguments put forward, no assumptions, no "lazy history", no facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SmirkingGerbil said:

So what are the trade offs, pros/cons of say the Japanese BB vs. the German BB line? I seem to do better in BB's, but I like to fancy myself a DD wizard . . . in my own mind.

Germans are secondary oriented, and have a lot of armour and durability. but they have kinda innacurate guns. Japanese, right up until the Izumo/Yamato, are much more fast and mobile - the Amagi Makes 30kn, but at the expense of armour. they also have lower detection ranges, and worse secondaries. (though the Yamatos secondaries are nothing to sneer at) They take a bit more finesse to play, but can be more rewarding IMO. The Izumo, well thats just a pile of shit so ill ignore it, but the Yamato is more like a slow lumbering beast - though it does make 28kn. compared to the Kurfurst it has big giant derp guns which just punch their way through anything. in a front on duel, frankly a Yamato will beat a Kurfurst I would say just because the 460s on the Yammy will be able to overmatch the bow armour of the Kurfurst. though if you're both broadside to each other at sub 15km I would expect the Kurfurst to wreck face because the Yamatos citadel is huge, and the Kurfurst is extremely hard to citadel. 

 

TL;DR basically when playing my Yamato, I find the Kurfurst is the most annoying BB to fight. Montannas are just Damage farms, and a lot of yamato players I find aren't actually that good. (probably because the Yamato is like the Tiger 2 of WoWS, everyone wants a Yamato because Yamato)

P.S: this is from only having played the Japanese BBs and fighting the others, since I havent touched anything not japanese yet lol

 

also, +1 for the stock grind thing, just been grinding the Stock Kageroo, and I didn't feel very disadvantaged at all by it to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2017 at 9:41 PM, Assassin7 said:

Germans are secondary oriented, and have a lot of armour and durability. but they have kinda innacurate guns. Japanese, right up until the Izumo/Yamato, are much more fast and mobile - the Amagi Makes 30kn, but at the expense of armour. they also have lower detection ranges, and worse secondaries. (though the Yamatos secondaries are nothing to sneer at) They take a bit more finesse to play, but can be more rewarding IMO. The Izumo, well thats just a pile of shit so ill ignore it, but the Yamato is more like a slow lumbering beast - though it does make 28kn. compared to the Kurfurst it has big giant derp guns which just punch their way through anything. in a front on duel, frankly a Yamato will beat a Kurfurst I would say just because the 460s on the Yammy will be able to overmatch the bow armour of the Kurfurst. though if you're both broadside to each other at sub 15km I would expect the Kurfurst to wreck face because the Yamatos citadel is huge, and the Kurfurst is extremely hard to citadel. 

 

TL;DR basically when playing my Yamato, I find the Kurfurst is the most annoying BB to fight. Montannas are just Damage farms, and a lot of yamato players I find aren't actually that good. (probably because the Yamato is like the Tiger 2 of WoWS, everyone wants a Yamato because Yamato)

P.S: this is from only having played the Japanese BBs and fighting the others, since I havent touched anything not japanese yet lol

 

also, +1 for the stock grind thing, just been grinding the Stock Kageroo, and I didn't feel very disadvantaged at all by it to be honest.

Yamato can only overmatch the top third of the Kurfurst's bow so you struggle pretty hard to penetrate the citadel from frontal aspect. If he's smart enough to angle at 30 degrees or so then you're going to, at best, score penetrations on the top section of bow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or is the Koenigsberg a well rounded cruiser? I seem to do well in it, the guns seem to have better range than any other German ship I play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SmirkingGerbil said:

Is it just me, or is the Koenigsberg a well rounded cruiser? I seem to do well in it, the guns seem to have better range than any other German ship I play.

It isn't bad but it's ultra squishy. The 360 turret traverse is kind of sexy though. Shame that all three turrets turn through the frontal aspect so that you get pushed into closing the distance rather than kiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.