Exocet6951

That would have required WG to do the sensible thing: having 3 types of shells. AP for that juicy citpen, medium risk high reward HE for all purpose, low risk low reward SAP for a lower penetration AP with higher alpha and increase ricochet angles, high risk very high reward. Instead, it's spam SAP because they're mechanically an HE shells with no fire chance and less reliability. I honestly don't understand how WG came up with the idea to use HE shells as a basis on which to model armor piercing shells. For massive ****s and giggles, most AP shells for DDs ingame are actually SAP shells IRL. Some of them are even named "SAP" in the game. Those shells all use AP shell mechanics, and all have higher penetration than very high velocity 203mm SAP. I would love nothing more than to televise WG design meetings and turn them into humorous drinking games, although I suspect that said meetings are drinking games themselves. Slight parentheses, I found this interesting: How screwed up is AA, and more generally the CV rework that no one can agree on if a ship has good AA or not?

Now that is a fair point. Overall, the branch ddesign is odd. You start with absolute garbage ships with horrendous SAP and reload and number of guns, then by T8 you finally have a ship with enough accuracy and enough guns with a good layout to be qualified as good. Then you get a similar T9 but with extra guns and that one is brilliant. Then you get an even bigger T10 one with even more guns ! Surely having 20% more firepower should be enough right? The formula worked on T7 to T8 and T8 to T9. Apparently not. It gets a new ricochet rules out of nowhere. Why? It's not even necessary. For everyone who doesn't know about that rather obfuscated rule, the Venezia doesn't seem worth it at all. For everyone else, it's a ludicrously massive upgrade to just spring on a T10.

That's just not true. Especially if you use all turrets, then the DM has the correct angles for its AP to penetrate. Its super heavy, very high alpha AP. Trading USN CAs with Italian CAs is not something you do lightly, especially since they can bow in, still retain 2/3rd of their firepower and the only thing you can damage is their superstructure...if it's not too saturated and the turrets don't shatter your SAP. Something that's much, much less of an issue for 6x203mm HE shells firing every 5 seconds. The best recourse for Italian CAs when faced with a bow in cruiser is to disengage, not to out-trade.

You're actually making me point for me, thanks. Despite that, people are camping. You want to throw almost unrepairable citpen torpedoes in the mix. Gee, I wonder how people are going to react.... Certainly not by going closer to the action with little cover, thus closer to subs.... PS: Still waiting on a definition of defensive DD playing, and how it's different than throwing torpedoes down on caps and hiding behind islands as well, or so far from the enemy that the rest of the team is spotting for itself.

IE: even more ships staying away from caps, and pew pewing HE being islands? I mean you're not wrong, that would be a meta change. I'm not sure who in their right mind would be striving for even more ships "playing defensively" [insert sarcastic air quotes] , but sure, it's a meta change. PS: Even with ridiculous RN BB HE, Smolensks, Harugumos and company, BBs still camp. What makes you think adding torpedoes that can citpen ships that get too close will make BBs push? That's like arguing that removing all heals from BBs would make them push more, because they would be more willing to push in order to kill the enemy team faster. I'm sure in some odd fantasy world that might work, but if would be downright foolish to believe that the threat of even more damage from unexpected sources would make people play less conservatively with their HP and their positioning.

Gee I wonder why... PS: Fresh blood doesn't stick around if the game presents itself like a cashgrab, and they get shat on by CVs at T4, and nuked from below by subs. Oh, and all that with no functional ingame tutorials. Sunken cost fallacy marketing doesn't work when the sunken cost is 0€

Yes, no special repair party, I'll edit my post to make it clearer. That's a good point, although British CAs get their tankiness from a repair party, rather than the ship itself. That's a rather conditional tankiness, which I think was part of the rather tepid reception. Tankiness on cruisers tends to come with a very big 'IF' statement. Like the Hindy, 'IF the shell hits the turtleback' , or RN CAs 'IF the shells aren't all citpens'. BBs don't really have that problem, as long as they cross a certain plating threshold and basic belt armor threshold (ie: anything more than 300mm). I hope WG takes a reasonable approach, because the last non-gimmick, good all rounder BB branch we got was the USN branch.

There's really no need to have them be any fundamentally different than the Roma and Cesare: Compound belt armor of reasonable thickness, great armor plating that reward angling, good concealment and maneuverability. All that at the tradeoff of below average AA/secondaries, poor survivability if caught off guard, below average range, no special consumable or special repair party. The fantastic mid to low range hit, tank a bit and run ship, akin to French ships, but more emphasis on tanking, and less on speed. As long as you don't go overboard with every single strength (like the Cesare), and don't give a crippling unreliability (like the Roma), both those ships show that the concept is reasonable and fun to play.

Kremlin Exterminatus skin when?

It's frustrating because you know that every single new addition to the game has been examined in every minute detail to extract the max amount of money from the player while disregarding gameplay. There is no explaning dockyard events, lootboxes and hilarious early access lootboxes for 3 month branch arcs, while having a complete lack of actual ingame tutorials any other way. Everything you use ingame has been studied by a bean counter to make you spend money. Making a game is secondary.

Wow that's a messy spreadsheet. Monolithic bloc of info. Maybe that's why WG thinks CVs are fun, they're not reading the correct line.

2km torpedo secondaries when?

I'm going to go with confirmation bias coupled with you not clicking with it. Don't take it as criticism, it's perfectly normal and human. Hell, the Missouri is objectively an accurate BB, but in my hands, I don't think there's a simple ship or vehicle in any multiplayer game for that matter that hates me more than it.

The same people who worked silently for 3 years to bring you the CV rework other than proudly announcing 2017 to be the year of the CV only to pump out the Graf Zepp in an unfinished state, and only for it to fail at all the objectives it tried to accomplish while being loathed by the community. Wargaming would make for excellent case studies in business schools and product design courses.

Meanwhile, "Poor accuracy at long range" Kremlin at 18km:

This is a game where a battleship can press a button and extinguish 4 fires raging on the deck and 2 floodings filling the hull, then press a second button to repair literally all of that damage in a few seconds. I don't think you want to start playing the "logic" card, as a ship not sinking after getting shot by only 3 to 9 shells is one of the least egregious things in the game.

Wish granted. Torpedoes now do permanent flooding, are much less visible with no handy audiovisual indicator, and your precious battleship doesn't stop and accelerate from/to max speed within the length of itself, and takes more than 30 seconds to do a full 90 degree turn. Fun for everyone. For bonus lolz, a single fire can rage out of control and make your crew abandon ship.

And some people can't help being contrarians. Here's a situation: You're used to going to a certain restaurant. The next day, the restaurant changes its system, and you have to install an app on your phone just to go eat there. You're not thrilled, but fine, you can live with it. To celebrate launching the app, the company launches a PR campaign promising every single customer several drinks (plural) for their first visit. You get there, the app barely works, and upon arrival, the restaurant offers you a singular cup of orange juice. If it were a charity event, sure I'd let it slip. WG is a multinational company with an estimated $600 million in revenue a year, and this is a for-profit event. Yeah I'm going to mock it. Not for the actual gift, but for failing to recognize that 1 = singular, more than 1 = plural.

What's with the influx of people demanding to know why they should be allowed to use area of effect weapons in the middle of allied ships with 0 repercussions and personal responsibility? Oh right...

:'D

You have significantly below average damage in the Mogador and Kleber, two very powerful gun oriented DDs. Not even enough to kill a T4 BB. Reconsider your stance.

Imagine being that person. Just imagine the level of pure narcissism. "Hey your honor, I shot my submachine gun in full auto at the car thief and killed him. I knew there was civilians behind me and killed them all too, but hey, I said duck, so it's all on them. Why am I getting life in prison?"

I was very hesitant about keeping the game installed, after a week long trial run following a 4 month long break. Subs were shown, then I played a single FDG game where of 6 shells fired at 4km from a perfect broadside Musashi just at the right spot, all 6 shell short significantly . Uninstalled right on the spot after the battle ended. WG, if your game is going to be frustrating and infested with lootboxes, at least make it stable. That's really the n1 priority in an online game: being ****ing playable online.