m4inbrain

It's an early access beta, i suppose.

Yeah, just realized - weird. Can be seen here though: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/misc/whatif/habakkuk-700-em/

The "bergship" was supposed to be 1200m (roughly 4000 feet) long, that's not the size of the thing in the picture. It's really hard to tell, since there wasn't really a blueprint or anything, the only thing you have is people building fantasy-ish ships from datapoints that are available. Could've looked like anything really - although, it would have, again, ship shape (bergship was supposed to be, as i said, 1200m long and 180m wide, which gives it a shipshape from top at least). Otherwise you would simply not be able to move it. Since another specification was that it had to withstand even the harshest of waves ("it had to have a range of 7,000 miles (11,000 km) and be able to withstand the largest waves recorded, and the Admiralty wanted it to be torpedo-proof, which meant that the hull had to be at least 40 ft (12 m) thick", wiki), it had to have big-ish/high-ish sidewalls. And obviously, thick. With that in mind, the picture i added might obviously not be correct, but it should come kinda close. Less technic..y and a bit more iceberg..y, but overall, i actually think that's what it would've looked like. edit: here's the scale model (based on what people know)

USS Thule would be another one of those, there's a scale model out there made by enthusiasts, based on sketches and technical data. Which looks pretty close to that picture earlier. Since it was supposed to actually drive around (spec said it had to have 11000 miles working radius), it had to look like a ship anyway. At least remotely.

Made out of ice and woodchips, pretty much yes. About the picture: that's what you get if you google it. And no, it would actually resemble a ship (they're talking about side-wall thickness etc), more or less.

Yep, did that, lets see where that's going. I actually don't mind toooooo much, since it only happens rarely - but in the heat of the moment, it is really annoying. Especially against destroyers, where a single hit is usually game over, and you need to get rid of them quickly.

That wasn't apparently the biggest ship ever thought off - not just germans/japanese went "bigger is better". Project Habakkuk:

600m long, interesting. I wonder what people back in the day had in mind when they designed targets big enough for even horizontal bombers to hit reliably. ^^ Would still prefer H44. edit: after googling, i got another picture of that alleged ship, with two runways for planes? oO

Well i have the advantage of having the replay - the torp hits midship. You can also tell by the waterfountain not being on the back, but in the middle of the ship. edit: also had "low rolls" against the front of a ship before - that was the reason for me to activate replays in the first place. ^^ edit2: the torp also hit at a very shallow angle, although i was hit at equal angles for full damage - maybe that's the problem? Don't even know where to report bugs etc actually, the Developer Forum?

Borked the link earlier, should be big enough now?

I had it on when i hit a Minekaze with a torp for a whopping 118 damage. -.-

Crickets never sound awkward.

You have to activate them via config. If you didn't do that yet, you won't have a replay. https://na.wargaming.net/support/Knowledgebase/Article/View/398/20/enabling-replays-in-world-of-warships-closed-beta

Because 68 games over 4 ships equal alot more 1,5 dailies and other boni/events than 307 games in 11 ships?

Well i meet Clevelands alot, how can it get more unbalanced than a Furutaka vs a Cleveland? Maybe it's not even unbalanced but i'm just crap with the Furutaka, certainly a possibility - but it feels like i have literally zero edges towards that ship.

This is pretty much a buff to BBs, because the momentarily RNG is higher. Apart from it obviously never gonna happen, because you'd need to constantly monitor every ship and what he's aiming at (or not, considering that you have to lead the target, so if there's two ships close to each other at 17km, what ship will be used for the "RNG generation"? What if you lose vision the moment you shoot, what generates RNG then? Nah. I like that you tried to propose a solution, but i don't think that's it. edit: No, it's not about carriers per side, but squads in the air ;) - as i said, i think that CVs being forced to chose layout before a match is retarded and should be removed rather sooner than later, if only for exactly that issue. My opinion: no chosen layout (not realistic anyway, most carriers had all the things, and could retrofit fighters to fighterbombers like the F4U), because dumb. Overhaul the complete aircombat, make it dynamic so there's actually skill involved. Also, make it pseudo-3D, as in, give captains the option to fly at 3 or so different heights, with pro and contras (higher planes get bonus attacking lower planes - ground AA gets bonus to higher flying planes, something like that). Your whole argument now is based on what carriers are right now, or rather, their mechanics especially in regards to fightercombat - and i say, that has to go entirely. edit2: and why the hell do quote-blocks break if you edit a posting? -.-

That sounds like a whine now, but.. If the Aoba in relation is worse than the Furutaka, then i might not grow old in the IJN CA line. :/

Wat? Air superiority also means that friendly carriers can reign the oceans now without being intercepted. It's not just preventing the enemy team from winning. That of course means that carriers need to be redeveloped, and the stupid "setup by hull" has to go. Otherwise, to me it sounds like you're saying "carriers are arse, not because of no damage, but because of mechanics". Which would be right.

I like the looks of the Aoba, looking forward to it. But there has to be a way to make the Furutaka work as well, at least kinda. Don't want to end on 1000xp average on that boat.

The weird "setup decided by hull" has to go, imho. Phly had that quite right. Air superiority is something that should be fought about, even though current balance doesn't allow it (thanks to IJN fighters being unable to even remotely go toe to toe with USNs). In my mind, carriers not only need a complete rebalance, but reconception. The whole concept as implemented is just plain bad.

Doesn't sound too bad, escorting DDs could be something. I don't see the point in escorting BBs with this ship in particular, the AA is worse than bad, the range is barely "meh", and the guns are not really suited to hunt down DDs in a turning fight if he can run circles around me. Gonna try later, going trough stock Mutsuki atm, which is quite the pain.

I'd bet that at least half the playerbase is interested in WoWs because Navyfield 2 is utterly shi..bad. I don't think that the biggest part (not even half of it) is ex-WoT.

The thing with "highest quality players" is quite wrong considering you can buy into the CBT. Just being interested in ships doesn't mean you're good at them. Also, i played the actual beta (edit, i mean WoT), and i kinda don't know what you're talking about. It wasn't AS bad, right - but far from good as well. I assume that's something about expectations.

While i disagree with alot of the TEs opinion, the one thing (no communication) is a real pest. So many times i tried to ask another DD to come with me to cap somewhere, or went back into our capcircle asking(!) for support (just yesterday my poor New York went up against THREE DDs by itself, and i asked beforehand for support - our CAs were busy hugging the fricking mapborder, of course i died and we lost) - nothing. Not just no "nah, can't" or "yeah coming", but nothing. No reaction, at all. That's not the game though, that's the players. And it really sucks. BUT. One thing the TE in that regard is missing, is that the playerbase is extremely small compared to WoT. That, to me, is all the reason why the game plays as it does at the moment. More players = more chance of teamplayers.

Thanks for the info, gonna try later again with hopefully more impact in a game.