Benser33

21.3km gun range can be considered good, it is 1km more than FDG. 36°/sec gun traverse is also good at a tier where BBs have between 30-72s turret traverse times. Only FDG is faster. Pommern has arguable the best armor scheme at tier 9, including the thickest deck plating in the game and some of the least 32mm armor exposure of any BB, with resistance to all DD calibre HE, 152mm cruiser HE, most 203mm cruiser HE, only cruisers with enhanced HE like RN CAs and KM CAs or large cruisers with +305mm guns can HE pen the majority of the surface. Meanwhile, the armor scheme around the waterline, at the bow, stern and internally as well as in terms of thickness the citadel is one of the best protected ingame, particularly effective at shorter ranges. This durability is backed up by a respectable health pool. The armor is equal to FDGs, the HP is 3k less. Despite its protection, H class hulls are very large targets. 31knts counts as reasonably fast when 30knts is a good speed for a BB, although BB speeds at this tier only vary from 27-33knts without engine boosts, making 31 only slightly above average and barely different from any competing BBs it is enough to keep up with certain cruisers. This is 1knt faster than FDG. The secondaries are the same as FDGs, capable of 11.5km range, a capable mixture of 105mm secondaries that effectively start fires and can pen most non-BB targets and 150mm secondaries that boast 38mm of penetration without IFHE for reasonable added damage. Arguably the second best secondaries in the game after GK who brings 128mm guns instead of 105s. A common flault on the wiki is presentation of AA. Pommerns AA is not strong relative to other BBs and is entirely worse than FDGs. Considering the size and agility of Pommern and the armament that Pommern has (fictious 30mm quad AA guns) the AA is not very effective. Add to this the missing aircraft from Pommern means no spotter or fighter. The torpedo tubes can completely turn a close range engagement with practically any ship an the angles are surprisingly good considering. The torpedos are not mind blowing, but they are an invaluable tool nonetheless. Pommerns hydro equals FDGs, another strong german BB feature, with 6km reach to detect ships hydro is often used only to detect torps with a few extra seconds of reaction time. It can be used to great effect in enclosed spaces to see enemies hiding behind corners and islands or nearby smokes and is very useful. So infact, all of these traits of Pommern are equal or superior to FDG with the exception of the AA and the gun traverse, both of which are still typically bad/good for a German BB, and Pommerns absent aircraft catapult. But there is one point I didnt comment on, which is the second one; Pommerns 12 gun broadside is an incredible feature of the ship. This is not typical firepower for a German BB and compares to some more firepower focused BBs like Alsace while marrying that firepower to an extremely tough hull with numerous utilities like secondaries, torps and hydro. The guns are smaller so they cant overmatch 27mm, they reload slower and they have a low 1.5 sigma, but when firing at targets that dont factor overmatching you threaten your target with 40% more damage than FDG can deal, and even despite the slower reload Pommern can actually output higher DPM than FDG because the salvo damage is so high, and even with the worse sigma the two ships have the same dispersion reticle and the number of shells fired evens out the sigma to produce a similar level of accuracy to that of FDG (both average 27/28% accuracy in 2 month maplesyrup snapshot). Combine that with Pommerns ability to win more close quarters trades with the added torps and its pretty clear why Pommern is beating FDG is winrate, damage and kills. But like all brawling BBs, the trick with pommern is knowing when to engage in that brawl. Too often players in brawling ships believe they can press out into the open and engage multiple ships believing they can somehow manage the incoming focus fire and outtrade multiple enemies while being kited away from any sort of support and into enemy crossfire is not brawling, it is overextending. Pressuring an isolated enemy in close quarters where you can use short range tools like secondaries and torps to ensure you outtrade your enemy and shrug off damage with an armor scheme that excels at resisting huge, sudden bouts of damage is brawling.

I dont think we will see odd tier CVs return, but the previous carriers could still come back as even tiers alternatives.

Did you win 5 games with the normal Atlanta?

To make the Black ships more appealing to players who already own the identical, standard versions there is a mission to partially compensate the cost for people who already own the standard ship.

I just hope Siliwangi is on sale again this time, no interest in these comical premiums...

Flandre looks interesting, would be nice to have alsace hull at tier 8, although not sure why France needed a 4th tier 8 premium BB... Immelman looks pretty uninspiring and it's essentially guaranteed to be a difficult to obtain ship, so if the loadout is very strong it will be yet another contentious addition that adds towards the existing CV hate. Honestly not sure why you didnt save the skip bombing for something else. CL-154 is one of the most absurd bag of gimmick ships I've seen in a while. 5 consumables, SAP and all on a t10 premium? It could have been a nice ship.

Changing the plating to 25mm does make the angling mostly negligible, but the thickness still counts. Essentially rendering the shape of the armor scheme interior obsolete. On a path of most resistance a shell would have had to pass through 400mm Belt -> 40mm citadel slope (turtleback) angled at 70° which is effectively 117mm -> 70mm Citadel belt A shell arriving at 0° would have to penetrate ((400@0°=400)+(40@20°=117)+(70@0°=70)) = 587mm of armor but would be ricocheted by the 40mm slope. A shell arriving at 15° would have to penetrate ((400@15°=414)+(40@35°=70)+(70@15°=73)) = 557mm of armor With this change those values change to; ((375@0°=375)+(25@20°=73)+(50@0°=50)) = 498mm with no longer a possibility for the sloped plates to ricochet shell >356mm calibre. ((375@15°=388)+(25@35°=44)+(50@15°=52)) = 484mm Yamato 410mm belt angled at 20° struck at 15° = 500mm Montana 409mm belt is angled at 18° at best, if struck at 15° = 487mm So the change, for CC at least, reduces the penetration requirement down to a similar level to that of Yamato and Montana. The citadel is still entirely submerged and very narrow.

The game has ships based on realism, but the ships participate in arcade battles that follow arcade rules. The rules like concealment and consumables and AA and fires/floods are all designed to create differences between ship roles. Mechanics like concealment exist to add an additional balance parameter to ships and to enable different modes of gameplay, like spotting and stealth torping. Spotting and concealment are a lot less frustrating when you understand them. https://wiki.wargaming.net/fr/Portée_de_vue_et_dissimulation_(WoWs) If you have more questions, you might find better answers under the FR forum. https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/forum/134-communauté-francophone/

Launching fighters when the enemy squad is already within 4km of you is a waste of time. Launch the fighters when the enemy appears heading in your direction so that the fighter is actively circling you before they arrive, the CV will probably decide not to attack you altogether.

Well the average damage of the top 5% of Rheins is 52k and the #1 player by average damage with at least 40 games is 70k. 110k damage on average is what T10 CVs should really expect.

Under the October 2020 Steam hardware and software analytics report less than 3.5% of users were on Mac and less than 1% of users were on Linux distros like Ubuntu or Mint. It seems unlikely to be worth the effort of ensuring the client works on these operating systems, especially while WG currently works on evolving the game state into 64bit and Dx11. Changes that affect 95%+ of their users are more important than those that affect potentially less than 1%. Sounds like an issue with the laptop or trying to play at far too high graphics. My mums cheap, 6 year old laptop can load into a battle in less than a minute.

At tier 5, Guilio Cesare, although it is not really available now. A highly effective armor scheme and capable armament allow it to excel in many areas and its parameters are more closely comparable to a tier 6. The russian Pyotr Velikiy is also a very strong ship that has some of the best characteristics at its tier, combining a hull of mostly german design and influence with russian guns making it overall very capable. At tier 10, ships are more diverse and it is harder to pinpoint a particularly outstanding BB. Thunderer and Ohio both have quite powerful main guns that provide 30mm overmatch and very high shell damage, Thunderer features excellent accuracy and concealment but its protection is poor, Ohio has workable secondaries and well rounded survivability and US secondary BBs maintain their main battery accuracy, but it has poor maneuverability and speed. GK and Kremlin both have excellent armor, HE shells with less than 50mm of penetration can struggle to cause raw damage to either and the turtleback armor scheme of GK and thickness of Kremlins belt protect the citadels of both ships quite well while both having best-in-class HP. Kremlin also features limited but fast reloading damage control for increased survivability and also has guns that are good in all respects except long range accuracy, but its range, concealment and mobility are poor. GK has very good secondaries and one of the highest salvo alphas in the game and access to hydroacoustic search, but its gun angles are restrictive, its range is short and its maneuverability is poor. Bourgogne has some of the best mobility of any tier 10 BB with a +15% speed engine boost and utilising a powerful combination of 12 guns with access to main battery reload booster, effective for using AP to punish broadsides or to stick fires on a target who just used damage control. However, the ship costs steel to obtain, has some of the worst protection of any t10 BB with the least health, and the guns are only 380mm calibre, preventing AP overmatching on 27mm and 30mm armor and limiting what is otherwise relatively good AP performance. But all T10 BBs have their strengths, I didn't mention ships like Yamato or Shikishima who can overmatch 32mm plating common on most high tier BBs, or Slava who has most likely the best overall BB gun performance in the game, what usually defines which one is better are the other ships succeeding in the meta. In a meta full of ships with vulnerable broadsides, unovermatchable plating or 30mm plating then ships with powerful 457mm guns like Thunderer, Ohio and Kremlin are rated quite highly.

If you can find the replay folder in the game directory you might find the replay file for that particular battle. Replays are small files, not video recordings of the game but listed instructions, the game client is used to re-enact the battle so that you can watch it back from different perspectives. Feel free to check and see if you can watch the replay of that battle, if the circumstances are still unclear to you then share the file here and someone else can hopefully either clarify the particulars or confirm the cause. For more info on replays, check the FAQ at https://replayswows.com/

That is possible, you just have to disable the decorative category.

The game is also designed as such that players have a choice and can decide to go with optimisation or personal preference and in many areas there is not definitive best answer, such is the cause of debate, hence why a forum exists. That is the literal definition of a forum, a place to exchange ideas and views so discussion occurs. Of course, no one wants to hear the opinion of every forumite before they make their own conclusion, thats why posted opinions can be highlighted with reactions and QnA answers can be voted to the top of the list of responses. But ultimately, a viewer must form their own opinion. I did some scrouging on this feature to see if it was a third party extension, something of WGs creation or a root feature of Invision Powerboard. It appears to be the latter. https://invisioncommunity.com/4guides/how-to-use-ips-community-suite/content-discovery/activity-streams-r69/ WG will need to approach IPS as their client with feedback on the feature or find a marketplace plugin to see anything changed.

Although, it could be possible for either the signature or the profile panel of the forum profile to include icons or badges that highlight areas of achievement from an individual that adds some qualification to their opinions. Although there would need to be some balance between areas of expertise and some form of measure. I think the issue remains that, although some form of credential would certainly validate any opinions, verifying those credentials in the first place is the challenging part. Even if, for example, answers in the QnA format included a "credential" as you first described, what is to stop people from simply lying? Well my first response in the thread was insufficient apparently and I "come to a thread without contributing anything but just to oppose blindly in a shallow way with no constructive idea whatsoever", so to remedy the notion that I am not blindly opposing the idea but infact had multiple reasons to both oppose the idea and not offer any constructive alternative I had to elaborate. Apologies for the wall of text. Some irony in me being asked to share my opinion here by someone because "you are someone worth listening to" yet when I oppose the OPs vague intial idea, requesting clarification and countering the perception that less experience opinions are less valuable I am told my posts are unnecessary, irrelevant and that I should refrain from posting. It would be nice if you could have an activity stream that was content that was both in threads you follow and from members you follow, not either/or. You can create a stream that contains only content from threads that you follow and that is by a specific list of individual members (separate from members you follow, you have to define it specifically for that stream) but it would be easier if it could just content that is both Items and Members you follow. Changes to the activity stream would require changes to a core feature of the invision forum programming so it might be beyond the ability of the WG forum admins, unfortunately. This was exactly the point I also tried to raise initially, but the OP still maintains the stance that "veteran" opinion is not just more valuable but the only opinions worth considering. So he requests a place where those lesser opinions can be automatically excluded. It is good to see something positive come of this thread, @CptMinia seems intent on determining if there is any merit to the idea at all and @Allied_Winter also looking for ways to improve the forum experience, @LoveZeppelin highlight forums tools and features that could be improved upon (although the invision board functions are usually quite difficult to improve beyond what extensions are available unless you are the extension developer) and @_Teob_ making the effort to flesh out a concept that doesn't exclude people from a forum which should exist to enable people to communicate, not silence people deemed invaluable. Are there ways the forum could be improved? Sure. But, I don't think a veterans only section existing is the answer, at least not for the purpose of creating an area of more highly intellectual discussion, people need to remember (myself included) that when you have a conversation with even just one other person here on the forum that can be read by many other people. OPs intent seems, to me, to only want to censor out certain opinions. Maybe WG should add the collectors club section for people with the collectors badges like they previously suggested, maybe that will provide the "old timers club" for the veterans and enthusiasts who stuck with the game over the years.

Seems strange that there is no German QnA section, at least the players themselves have adapted that first aid thread you referred to. But now it sound as though it exists more out of lack of alternatives than as a preference of format. Perhaps you should suggest that other language forums have a similar QnA section to the English one, I'm sure the German one would see some use. Regardless, I considered the suggestion one directed toward the English speaking forum, since it was posted in the English General Discussion. And there would be no need for a QnA thread when there is both newcomers section and English QnA which both see regular use. OPs request has stated previously as being more than just QnA anyway but probably a place for multiple threads of debate.

In my example I demoted my example 30k games player from an expert to worthless with the only distinction being that 28k of their 30k games was played in Black Swan. My point being there is no quantified statistic that qualifies someone as having a more valuable opinion than anothers, even if you think that someone Why do you assume I think they are the same? If I meet someone who has only played 3k games I would expect them to be less experienced than me. But if they have 1500 games in DM I feel sure they know something about DM that I do not. These are the players that notice when some small facet of a ship is quietly or accidentally changed between patches because they are intimately familiar with the ships they prefer. They do not need 5 years of experience and 20-30k battles to provide valuable information that is pertintent to the current iteration of a ship, they might even give a more informed answer than someone who has 2k games in DM and 20k games played who hasn't touched DM in 2 years. But you imply their opinion is valueless? But in a contradictory way you also suggest having players somehow highlighted as especially experienced in certain areas? Yet you also expect "veterans" to be experienced in all past mechanics and concepts. Make up your mind. Here is yet another flawed aspect of your perspective. A player with 20k games played who has played 90% of those games in BBs, owns every BB across all tiers and has numerous 19pt commanders for each ship and nation. They give some advice about ship positioning on certain maps or enemy ship matchups or tactical advice to a new player who has "only" 2k games played. This new player shares that advice with you, I pressume you would dismiss it because they "have no experience". That is how you describe your opinion of such a player so far. But this advice is not borne from experience, but from knowledge. So no, you cannot rule out a players perspective solely due to their experience. I think you fail to understand the fact that your suggestion in its presented state had no merit and regardless of how many times you ask people to go back and read what you have previously posted that does not change that what you had said was a vague and formless idea based on an ill-explained notion of veteran players somehow being superior. I think the players you anticipate participating do infact not exist in any generalised sense, but your definition so far has been contradictory and flawed. What you consider unnecessary back and forth is a symptom of your poorly formed and explained idea which you fail to elaborate upon when requested, and so far what justification you did provide leads me to conclude that no, this is not something worthwhile, because you definitions are arbritrary. Also, it is not necessary for me to provide constructive feedback to something I oppose, I can provide reasoning for opposing it, if you don't provide a satisfactory explanation then I am free to oppose your idea like many others have here. My "constructive alternative" to your idea is not to implement it, I am not obligated to improve your idea for you just because my reasoning concludes it is bad, it is within my right not to invest time and thought into further developing your idea. And if you are aware of my previous posts you would know that <5% of my posts are here in General. The only reason I am even taking part in this discussion is because my opinion was requested by someone else. In my first post I said "your concept seems flawed, we have platforms that provide what you suggest already, I don't see any added value in this idea". Consider that unconstructive dismissal if you wish, but consider it a reflection of your proposition regardless. I originally thought you wanted a veterans section of the forum so that experienced players could come to informed conclusions on various matters to bring those subjects to WGs attention with an experienced consensus on specific subjects. But that would exclude newer players perspectives which are equally important in the grand scheme of things as experienced players perspectives because the way things are perceived by those who do not know is an important consideration for WG. But instead; And what makes you think that two similarly experienced veterans will agree on things anyway? How do you validate what is most accurate, particularly when discussion subjective opinions? There is a QnA section where the posts can be upvoted and are displayed in the order of "most highly rated first" so there is no need to trawl through lots of back and forth. If someone posts a question and receives a single, consise answer in a well formed post it usually gets elected to the top of the responses. Why would you need a QnA thread when there is an entire QnA Section already which functions in a way that allows posters to mark the best answer and readers to upvote posts they think are valuable or accurate in addition to regular forum functions? Posts battle count is displayed as a number,, clan rating is displayed as a colour and links via players profiles to their stats are available if a reader wants to determine the "veterency" of the person answering the question, but posters with lesser credentials who can provide a straightforward answer to a simple but valid question and not excluded from contributing. From what OP explained though it sounds like its not a Question/Answer scenario they want, but some of actual forum of discussion just without contributions that they, personally, perceive as unnecessary. Unless they can explain otherwise, the idea still sounds largely self serving, meaningless and also pretty unrealistic. @Execute0rder66 if you want the opinions of specifically qualified players like ERaZeR, just ask them yourself in a private message?

I think you can only hope that they return, there is no set schedule or expected reoccurance of the admiral packs and this exclusivity is part of what people pay for when they are released. The only thing you can do if there is a past admiral pack you would like is wait and hope, unfortunately. Also, selling things on a players personal anniversary would be unusual. Although, players do often get coupons on their personal anniversary.

Then why is that change not published anywhere? I can find no mention of this particularity.

You are correct, this is actually a mod feature... However, I still recommend checking that replays are, infact, enabled. The FAQ at https://replayswows.com/ has instructions to check manually.

So what? 30k games played with 70% winrate? Expert player. 28k games played in Black Swan. Worthless. Worth more because there are 10 ship lines theyve never seen? A CV rework theyve never taken part in? Game modes and events theyve never witnessed? New and changed game mechanics that they've never seen? Why do you think 1K games is not a lot of games? That's probably over 150 hours of play. And? So you exclude the valid and correct input of the player with 2k games? Yes, many players can. But experience and knowledge are not the same. And what stat will indicate how much time a player has spent watching CCs to learn how things work while on lunch break or browsing through reddit reading opinions or testing things in training rooms out of curiousity? How do you quantify exceptions? Finally, I wonder what the purpose of such a forum section really is? Who is the intended audience of this forum section? Just the veterans themselves? If so then it seems self serving and pointless.

So are you. Yes, but 10k games experience without ever learning how certain concepts work is not worth as much. 15k games experience followed by a 2 year break from the game is not worth as much. A new player who is quickly taught by other veterans how to play and how the mechanics work and obtained 5 useful tier 10s and participates in 2 seasons of CW while following recent streams and dev blogs and test sessions with 2k games played can be vastly more informed than someone who has spent the last 4 years playing 30k co-op games. Not all experience is equal, and you certainly cannot quantify it easily in a way that applies to a whole community like the forum.

You should probably confirm your replays are currently enabled. Replays should be stored in subfolders of the Replays folder named after each patch.

The problem you identify of misinformation being spread can come from many sources; lack of experience, outdated information, confirmation bias. There is no particular virtue to being a veteran, at least not in the context of a video game. Players that seek to inform themselves and understand the intricacies of the game and pass on that knowledge to others, either by sharing information here on the forum, contributing to wikis and third party data sites or composing reviews/guides on youtube/reddit, etc, are available on various platforms without needing a dedicated forum section. But the onus does not lie just with those who seek to spread information but those that seek it to verify what they read, to question it and determine the truth for themselves. I'm not sure what there is that could be said in a veterans forum section that would be more valuable in a veterans only section than anywhere else in practise.