A Discussion Video on the 'Halland Concept'

[Sorry_Yodo_Only]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNE7xrw5KGE

This is a video posted by FatFluffyPenguin on YouTube. It features Halland game play and gives an account of his thoughts on what he calls the 'Halland concept' and the ways and reasons why he thinks it sucks. FatFluffyPenguin defines the 'Halland concept' as the archetypal torpedo destroyer following the 2020 release of the Pan-European line of destroyers in WoWS.

Torpedoes with "fast speed, good range, fast reload, low damage to compensate' with the idea that being able to spam more torpedoes out you would get more consistent performance. In his words, basically "the Halland line was designed for bad players".

He brings up the shortcomings of this concept. Whereas the 'traditional' torpedo destroyers in WoWS have the advantage of being able to do "lots of damage very quickly", thereby either sinking or crippling and reducing their target's game influence significantly. High damage output torpedoes give the player an advantage in how they can influence the battle, whereas the low damage torpedoes based on the 'Halland concept' fundamentally fail to achieve this. The window of opportunity for inflicting decisive damage to the enemy never opens.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Admiral_Karasu
Missing video content description.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

From the video: "I think... an attempt by Wargaming to essentially push torpedo boats to be more accommodating for a lower-skill audience."

A screencap:

He can say what he likes, but I think it was an attempt by WG to introduce a completely different flavour of destroyer.

The gist I get from reading between the lines of the transcript is that he and this line just don't get along, which is a different thing IMHO from the line "sucking." 

He has some valid points, particularly in my context of co-op play. The torps do indeed hit like fluffy pillows, and especially at lower tiers you can put any thought of a one-shot insta-kill of a full-health BB right out of your mind. This improves somewhat with the researchable torps in the T8 Oland,  but against ships with good torpedo belt protection or at higher tiers you are still going to struggle. These are ships designed for a long game of wearing big ships down with repeated flood damage imposed at long range, and maybe some fires if your WASD hax are good or you have some land to hide behind or a smoke to borrow. 

If you were addicted to dumping both racks on a full-health T10 BB and seeing the bits rain down in port, the Swedish ticklers were a culture shock and a half.

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

39 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

He can say what he likes, but I think it was an attempt by WG to introduce a completely different flavour of destroyer.

The gist I get from reading between the lines of the transcript, is that he and this line just don't get along, which is a different thing IMHO from the line "sucking". 

He has some valid points, particularly in my context of co-op play. The torps do indeed hit like fluffy pillows, and especially at lower tiers you can put any thought of a one-shot insta-kill of a full-health BB right out of your mind. This improves somewhat with the researchable torps in the T8 Oland,  but against ships with good torpedo belt protection or at higher tiers you are still going to struggle. These are ships designed for a long game of wearing big ships down with repeated flood damage imposed at long range, and maybe some fires if your WASD hax are good or you have some land to hide behind or a smoke to borrow. 

If you were addicted to dumping both racks on a full-health T10 BB and seeing the bits rain down in port, the Swedish ticklers were a culture shock and a half.

We usually don't agree on much but I agree with you on this. Its a different flavor ... just like SAP guns, DW torps, Skip bombers, and all the rest. WG cant release the same old crap over and over again with just different names, there need to be a new unique playstyle or I fear .... "gimmick".

I lost all interest in the video when he said ships like Halland and Jäger has very little game impact ..... I dont know what all the rest of the players do in these ships but IF im not top of the team im definitely Top 3 in pretty much every match, win or lose, and thats not purely out of skill, it has much to do with these ships.

In Jäger:

• I get "Combat scout" in a huge majority of my games.
• I usually kill of the slumbering "parked at border CV"
• I usually secure 3-4 caps because best in tier concealment
• I usually make my flank a "No-Go Zone" for BBs since there is just constant torp/flood spam with broken engine and modules and forced DCP

In Halland:

• Pretty much the same as Jäger but with also ability to gunfight contesting DDs and Nuke CV squadrons.

 

[Itwastuesday]

Screamin' fast torpedoes are what hits other destroyers. 

Hållål is big and clunky though, so not my cup of tea most of the time. It can cockroach just fine with the heal and semi-effective AA, which makes it kinda relaxing, even with the maneuverability woes.

[tocqueville8]

I agree with the argument of the video, though imho the problem with the Halland (nevermind the Jager...) has even more to do with the lack of smoke and the so-so guns. I think that other youtuber, Hagostaeldmann from NA, had a good take by calling the ship "noob bait": people who want to play a torpedoboat are told the line is nice because A) fast and fast-reloading torps -> consistency, B) decent guns, at least for self-defense, C) good AA, so you won't get griefed by CVs. "Shima mains! Tired of missing your torps, getting bullied by gunboats and permaspotted by planes? Play Halland!", that sort of thing.

In practice, what matters for the torps is alpha strike against broadside targets and volume + stealth against nose-in targets. Halland has the latter, but not the former: something like YY is in a much better spot. The reload is not terribly important, the speed is fine against people running away, but it's still a low-probability launch.

As for the guns, they're indeed decent for self-defense, but without a smoke or high speed + good ballistics it's much harder to set up an unfair fight and melt down the enemy DD (or something larger). Plus they lack range, and both the recommended build and Swirski's talents point people towards building for torps instead. That means very little contribution against cruisers and BBs, outside of torpedo hits.

As for the AA, yeah it's nice, but not decisive. A few days ago some Midway fed me 85+ planes, but it didn't matter: without smoke I couldn't farm the pushing BBs, and with puny torps I hit, but couldn't sink, some DD in the first engagement of the match.

Halland was the first Tier 10 DD I played a lot, so maybe I was a bit inexperienced in most of her games, but even years later and after trying multiple builds I just don't get it. My wr isn't terrible or anything: worse than on some of her peers, much better than on others. But -bizarrely- it's consistency that she lacks: I regularly lose my "good" Halland games and win my "bad" ones. The area denial, including against planes, is simply more vague and indirect than Druid's AP racking up damage, or Marceau jumping on people.

Weirdly enough, the rest of the line worked very well for me, especially Oland. But at Tier 10 it's like hitting a rubber wall. Daring worked right off the bat, and even now with the wonky Leg Mod: she's just sooo forgiving. Gdansk? No-conceal F. Sherman? No problem, never had the need to change a thing. My Halland is still 'meh', and not in a funny way like Tromp. I agree with Flamu, who rated her as a 'C'.

[Admiral_Karasu]

I edited OP by adding the description that was missing but which you are required to write for the videos you post on DevStrike!.

The amount of information I put there is probably more than the minimum that we require. There's no set limit on how detailed you have to be, so you can write a little less, or a little more, depending on your own interest in the topic. You have to give the rest of community some idea of what the video is about.

[Itwastuesday]

Okay. I disagree with this take. The narrow spread equals out the lack of alpha quite a bit. The low cooldown means the opportunity cost of using them isn't high, and that you're more likely to have them ready when the opportunity presents itself. They're also generally more useful in the usual situation than most other torpedoes because of the range and the speed they travel that range. 

Halland is still quite decent. I hate it though. It promotes lame 'torpedo sniper' gameplay in craven people. My hot take is that torpedoes should either be relatively short-ranged and good (kleber, f3 shima) to promote aggressive, risky but rewarding gameplay OR slow and bad zoning torps like shima 20's. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 hours ago, Itwastuesday said:

Okay. I disagree with this take. The narrow spread equals out the lack of alpha quite a bit. The low cooldown means the opportunity cost of using them isn't high, and that you're more likely to have them ready when the opportunity presents itself. They're also generally more useful in the usual situation than most other torpedoes because of the range and the speed they travel that range. 

Halland is still quite decent. I hate it though. It promotes lame 'torpedo sniper' gameplay in craven people. My hot take is that torpedoes should either be relatively short-ranged and good (kleber, f3 shima) to promote aggressive, risky but rewarding gameplay OR slow and bad zoning torps like shima 20's. 

The "lack of alpha-damage" is real, in my opinion.  🙂 
That being said ...

Lately, I've been playing my EU Destroyers for the "Around the World" and "Battle of Oliwa" missions.  Granted, I don't have the Halland.
I'm still earning ShipXP with the VII Skåne, to research the next ship in the line.

I feel that EU Destroyers are okay in random battles.  The "threat" of their torpedoes is enough to affect the decisions of opposing random players, especially if the opposing DD's have been sunk and the EU DD has an advantage in detection/spotting capabilities (compared to the remaining Cruisers & BB's).
Also, my team tends to shoot and damage opposing ships (most of the time).
So, when I set-up a stealth torpedo attack and hit with three to six torpedoes on an already damaged Battleship, they may sink or become so close to sinking that they can be finished-off with gunfire from myself or my team-mates.
The slower pace of random battles works in the EU Destroyer's favor, I feel.

In Co-op, I'm usually disappointed with their results, though.  Or I have to work harder and learn new tricks.
Example:
The other night, I launched torpedoes at a battleship in a Co-op game, early and from long range.
My plan was to launch, and then use the remaining time to reload while I continued to close the distance to the target for a follow-up torpedo strike.
If the BB altered course or speed, or stopped entirely, then my first torpedoes would miss. 
Let's face it, launching 10m range torpedoes at a target which is 11 km away is a gamble. 
But, sometimes the gamble paid-off.  🙂 

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Let's face it, launching 10m range torpedoes at a target which is 11 km away is a gamble. 
But, sometimes the gamble paid-off.  🙂 

How fast does the enemy need to be moving to run into your 10m range torps? 🤔

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Nevermore135 said:

How fast does the enemy need to be moving to run into your 10m range torps? 🤔

They merely need to continue moving.
(The Torpdeo aiming-cone will indicate the likely point of intercept, even for ships beyond the actual range of the torpedo.)
The torpedoes have a 10 km range and the target will move that remaining 1 km (or more) and the torpedoes should intercept and hit the target.
This assumes the target doesn't maneuver or change speed significantly. 
So, planning the shot and accounting for terrain and pathing to the target's intended objectives needs to be considered.

 

TARGET ---->------>--TORPEDO IMPACT---

<-----------<--------------<------------<----------<-----<-----<-----<-----<TORPEDO LAUNCH POINT-<--MY SHIP

Edited November 22, 2024 by Wolfswetpaws

[Nevermore135]

47 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The torpedoes have a 10 km range

Yes they do. I know how torping outside your torpedo range works. I was making a joke about how fast a ship would need to go to clear 10.99km of distance in the time your torpedo cleared 10m. Although I suppose if the torpedo was instead a mine…

Edited November 22, 2024 by Nevermore135

[Wolfswetpaws]

22 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Yes they do. I know how torping outside your torpedo range works. I was making a joke about how fast a ship would need to go to clear 10.99km of distance in the time your torpedo cleared 10m. Although I suppose if the torpedo was instead a mine…

Suffice to say, "What you thought you were saying as a message/joke was not clearly understood in the manner you intended".
I took your post at literal face-value and treated it seriously.

[Sumseaman]

Nice vid. Deliciously condescending.