|
|
-
Need to reanalyze the role of HH
12. 05. 2011 20:28
 Recommend : 4
saub0010
|
It would appear that WWII was won with HH if these games are any example of history. HH has clearly overstepped its role in the game, considering most ships have HH, and some even use it has there primary and/or sole weapon. My suggestion would be to have HH have no effect or limited effect on all surfaced ships, hh would nly be able to cause damage to submerged subs only, which was there original purpose
|
-
Re : Need to reanalyze the role of HH
12. 06. 2011 20:46
Iced8383
|
Originally Posted by woodskier
wait a minute. You mean in 1945 the Yamato wasnt sunk by a dozen destroyers with hedge hogs ?
MY HISTORY TEACHERS HAVE BEEN LYING TO ME ALL THESE YEARS
|
-
Re : Need to reanalyze the role of HH
12. 06. 2011 22:28
BradeLern
|
Originally Posted by Ultra_Dog
Originally Posted by Lionel2
Originally Posted by TheScarecrow
Originally Posted by KingCong
search function
and then youd tell him off for necroing an old thread.... you cant win.
Maybe people should get the point that we are all sick of fighting over it. This is the suggestion thread. Its been suggested before. NF took the HH out of the blitz and CV select modes so that it doesn't happen there. This thread should be locked as it has no purpose. The original posted hasn't said anything that hasn't been mentioned ten times over.
SO? When does NF finally get the message that HH are an abomination? They fire farther than L30-40 guns, produce more damage than L60 guns. We all know the HH-Whore that just motors up and down destroying other ships at will. Total abomination. 10,000 players all complain, NF does little to nothing. Oh, let's "balance the subs", let's wait for an "overall ASW" solution. Nonsense! This weapon is an abomination. They are nuclear cluster bombs. You can easily fix this HH problem before, or after either the Sub or ASW changes are effected. NF is flat out lazy. And just this important note: I'm only talking about the damage to surface ships!!
Idea. Maybe the shell type of HH can be changed before and after it hits the water. So when it is first fired, maybe it could act like a sea mine that is dropped from a scout. If it lands on another ship, it just explodes harmlessly like sea mines do when scouts drop them too close. Then once the HH hits the water, it changes into what it is now, a DC like thingy but not as nuketastic. Maybe a more localized explosion and reduced amounts of surface damage. This way it'll prevent the lvl. 120 Moltkes nuking an entire BB line with their PHH.
|
-
Re : Need to reanalyze the role of HH
12. 07. 2011 05:22
woodward1995
|
Originally Posted by Ultra_Dog
SO?
When does NF finally get the message that HH are an abomination? They fire farther than L30-40 guns, produce more damage than L60 guns. We all know the HH-Whore that just motors up and down destroying other ships at will. Total abomination.
10,000 players all complain, NF does little to nothing.
Oh, let's "balance the subs", let's wait for an "overall ASW" solution. Nonsense! This weapon is an abomination. They are nuclear cluster bombs. You can easily fix this HH problem before, or after either the Sub or ASW changes are effected. NF is flat out lazy.
And just this important note: I'm only talking about the damage to surface ships!!
your saying they dont do stuff for us but they do a lot the game takes a lot to to addd new stuff or take stuff away from rooms lke they did with hh from blitz
|
-
Re : Need to reanalyze the role of HH
12. 07. 2011 06:59
Lionel2
|
Originally Posted by Ultra_Dog
SO?
When does NF finally get the message that HH are an abomination? They fire farther than L30-40 guns, produce more damage than L60 guns. We all know the HH-Whore that just motors up and down destroying other ships at will. Total abomination.
10,000 players all complain, NF does little to nothing.
Oh, let's "balance the subs", let's wait for an "overall ASW" solution. Nonsense! This weapon is an abomination. They are nuclear cluster bombs. You can easily fix this HH problem before, or after either the Sub or ASW changes are effected. NF is flat out lazy.
And just this important note: I'm only talking about the damage to surface ships!!
First of all, SDE DID do something, they removed them from CV select and Blitz, where they were vastly overpowered. That was the single best thing they could do. So now, talking about GB, who the heck is depending on L30-40 guns? The AA ships? NF is NOT flat out lazy. In a GB they aren't nuclear cluster bombs. Are they effective on CLs and DDs and subs? Yes, they are, but to get a decent reload ability and the accuracy you need some really high level gunners to make them effective. If I had to chose to weapons systems in a GB for close quarters combat, SS killing abilty aside, I'd go with rapid fire 6" guns with heavy ammo. I can deliver the same amount of damage more accurately and faster. I respect you as a player, but I think that part of your motivation here is because you want your SS to not get nuked by HH carrying CVs and CAs.
|
-
Re : Need to reanalyze the role of HH
12. 07. 2011 07:21
Lionel2
|
Funny all these complaints about HH not being a realistic weapon. They were powerful enough in WWII to sink a submarine with 1 or 2 hits. They also were able to be used against surface ships. If we are going to remove weapons systems that we claim "aren't real" then perhaps we should nerf all the KM torpedoes with "splash damage" lol. I don't know who came up with that, but anyone who knows how a WWII torpedo worked would know that it wasn't just the explosion of the torpedo that damaged the ship, but the pressure directly against the hull that allowed a rush of seawater in that caused the most damage. A torpedo blowing up in the area of a ship would not do that.
So the following list of items in NF didn't exist in WWII. They are all overpowered and we we should get rid of all these:
- Proxy torps
- All the BB6s
- All the BB5s
- Every Soviet ship bigger than a destroyer (except seva)
- All the MN CVs except Bearn
- Every KM ship bigger than a CA except Bismark, Scharny, and Gensu
- All the 20" and 18" guns except Yamato's
- Reduce the amount of DP on the SS to make them weaker than a DD (which they were)
- Cap the OH speed of all ships to make it no more than 40 knots
- Reduce the speed of all SS to no more than 15 knots submerged
- All scouts faster than a T3
- All the T4 fighters
- The Airlift soldiers are ok, but all the air cargo transports can't fly off CV
I'm sure that there are more things in this game which are more powerful then the were in the war that someone decided to add as content. So my point is, at what point do we decide that make believe weapons are too much? Whats a more powerful make believe weapon a HH or a 20" gun that can outrange any other weapon in the game? Torps that don't need to hit? HH have already been limited, and they are no different than any other weapon on this list.
|
-
Re : Need to reanalyze the role of HH
12. 07. 2011 14:13
BradeLern
|
Originally Posted by Lionel2
HH have already been limited, and they are no different than any other weapon on this list.
Ever seen the lvl. 120 moltkes run around and blast entire north/south side in a minute? HH weren't as devestating as surface weapons as NF makes them seem to be. Against subs, yes. Surface ships, no. They could cause damage, don't get me wrong, but one ship with HH couldn't nuke 5 BBs by itself with them. They're overpowered. By the way, we're not worried about normal HH. We're mostly talking about PHH. That's the bad stuff
|
-
Re : Need to reanalyze the role of HH
12. 08. 2011 06:14
Lionel2
|
Originally Posted by BradeLern
Originally Posted by Lionel2
HH have already been limited, and they are no different than any other weapon on this list.
Ever seen the lvl. 120 moltkes run around and blast entire north/south side in a minute? HH weren't as devestating as surface weapons as NF makes them seem to be. Against subs, yes. Surface ships, no. They could cause damage, don't get me wrong, but one ship with HH couldn't nuke 5 BBs by itself with them. They're overpowered. By the way, we're not worried about normal HH. We're mostly talking about PHH. That's the bad stuff
I have never had a PCA drive up to me and blow me apart with PHH. A BB5/6 should be able to blast them out of the water with a single salvo. A decent BB3/4 should be able to hit them so hard that they are crippled and they finish them on the next salvo as they move out of the PHH range. I have used a DDX armed with PHH for ASW and ended up killing CVs at the end of a match. A CV should have some sort of guns either their own PHH or guns mounted for self defense. As I stated before, I'm using L80+ elite BVE reload gunners. If I tried that with some crude I rolled with no vets, it wouldn't work out so well. If I had used 5/38s with those same gunners and heavy ammo, I could have just as easily closed with and destroyed them. A guy started a thread about the hard time he was having in blitz, and as it turned out it was me and a DDX he was talking about (lower level gunners tho) So no, I don't think that PHH is an instant win. I think the problem is that just like the guy in the other thread, you need to be able to protect yourself with a variety of weapons. If you are in a CV, arm yourself with good gunners and your own PHH or get some reload gunners and put something to go along with the AA in your ammo locker. I haven't had any of these problems.
|
-
Re : Need to reanalyze the role of HH
12. 08. 2011 09:00
BradeLern
|
When you see a PCA nuke you with 35 PHH every 3-4 seconds you'll understand.
|
|
|
