Benser33

I meant the B turret of Tirpitz, not the Tirpitz B.

And yet Tirpitz and Bismarck have numerous minor differences in their loadout and geometry. Few people even know that Tirpitz B turret can turn back further than Bismarcks.

Plymouth range increase, ok. Belfast '43 gets yet another smoke, sure. Oklahoma reload nerf seems pretty extreme but when I compare her to Texas you can see Oklahomas got a few strengths that might make her otherwise outshine Texas. Main Guns Same guns in the same quantity but Oklahoma has a more comfortable layout than Texas old centerline twins layout. Oklahoma also reloaded faster (by a mere 0.28s) and has more range than Texas. The downside for Oklahoma is that her HE is just worse than Texas', lower fire chance, low damage, slower shells. And the AP is also not good, lower damage per shell by 300 and hideously low penetration. Secondaries Texas 6x 127mm secondaries with 4km range do not even remotely compare to Oklakomas 18x 127mm guns which also get 500m more range, for whatever secondaries are really worth at this tier. Whats this? Oklahomas secondaries have improved dispersion?... okay AA Texas has some strengths, primarily her incredible AA for a tier 5 with over 650 dps far outshines Oklahomas pathetic 190 dps, but Oklahomas has 4.8km range and 3 flak compared to Texas 3.5km range and no flak. It is hard to say which is really better, I dont feel 3 flak is enough to really pose a threat to most CVs and 650 dps will be a more consistent benefit even with the reduced range that can only protect yourself. Survivability With 49.1k and 48.2k hp their health pools are mostly the same and on the surface their armor schemes are similar too, decks covered in 19mm armor, 25mm torpedo bulges over the belt, turrets have mostly 150-200mm of armor, although Texas turret faces are 356mm thick, Oklahomas twins are 406mm and her triples are 457mm thick. Underneath the surface things are very different. Texas has a 76mm thick citadel behind a 280/305mm thick citadel belt behind her 25mm torpedo bulge for a total of 406mm of thickness at most in a simple armor scheme, with a 25/38mm thick citadel roof under an 89mm bomb deck in the casemate. Oklahoma however has a turtleback armor scheme, a 51mm thick citadel below a 45° 51mm thick turtleback plate, behind a 273/343mm thick citadel belt behind a 25mm thick torpedo bulge. Including the 51mm thick plate, which isn't angled enough to ricochet shells very often if fully broadside, having an effective thickness of 72mm that is a total of up to 491mm of protection. This is under a 38mm citadel roof and a 127mm thick bomb deck in the casemate. Concealment Oklahomas 13.5km concealment is a lot better than Texas' 16.02km although her 10.25km aerial concealment is worse than Texas 8.5km probably thanks to the increased AA range. Manuverability Another rare Texas advantage, Texas moves a massive 0.8knts faster than Oklahomas 19.7knts, but Oklahomas 610m turning circle and 13.4s rudder shift beat Texas 650m/14s turning. Consumables Once more Oklahomas takes the edge here, they're both equipped with US DCP (20s duration), repair party and a spotter plane, however Texas repairs at 0.5%/tick and Oklahomas gets 0.66%/tick which means she can restore 32% more hp per repair party. So, Oklahoma suffers in the firepower department. Her guns have more range but are worse in every other way. Her secondaries are more numerous and accurate and her armor scheme features a turtleback, plus she is also more maneuverable, has better surface concealment and has an enhanced repair for her tier, with the commander skills rework she could be a viable secondary spec BB for the US down at tier 5. But even discounting that possibility, in a comparison Oklahoma seems to have a number of advantages over Texas in terms of survival and concealment, slightly better manuverability and AA (arguable) but such a massive gun disadvantage in terms of penetration and reload time makes me question what their goal is for this ship.

You are more than correct. (Yellow is NY & Texas penetration, Purple is Oklahoma penetration) Those are starting penetration values of 737mm and 436mm respectively, a 300mm difference.

The ship we have at the moment is Roma, which we already have. They are just lazily reusing the model instead of making the changes that differentiated Roma from her sisters.

Lyon has 1.5 sigma Normandie with 12 guns has 1.6

Caracciolo needs better sigma. SAP damage should be limited against DDs, if you can justify the limit for regular BB AP then the SAP shells dealing 10% more damage than AP should also be limited. Veneto model is wrong, just like Littorio model is wrong. You actually made Venetos model different to Roma but you still somehow got it wrong. These 3 ships were all built slightly differently, it really is just greed and laziness to not bother with the distinctions of a third ship. No UP.41 is pretty disappointing. Secondaries are useless on the entire line and considering that it uses the French/Italian gun dispersion I thought the secondaries might actually be worth something but theyre all pretty useless and the range and fire chance makes them unworkable. Not a fan of Colombo, really was hoping for an authentic looking work of art when it came to the tier 10, this is a disappointment. Maybe the stern is prettier... One of the most highly anticipated ship lines in the game, the chance to give the often unrepresented Italian battleships a presence and identity in the game and create an authentic reproduction of the vessels of one of WW2s leading ship designers and present a realistic approximation of what the Italians could have developed if theyd had the opportunity to develop a rival to Yamato and you come up with... this half baked, disappointing nonsense. At least Andrea Doria and Caracciolo are pretty but it would be amazing if you had messed up those...

4 No benefit, if you dont get the key then betray your division, kill them and take the key yourself. div up with other key holders to keep your key or div up to hunt monsters and key holders as a group I guess

Great, so now not only is there no break from the constant events but also ranked is a never ending grind as well. Why not make CW 7 days a week 365 days a year as well? I really so no positive change in what you have listed. Constant, great. Why? Stop letting people save stars. Exp is not fully indicative of quality or contribution. So we have 30 ranks now instead of 18. So during the qualification you just have to grind stars, you can lose stars but you cant get relegated back to rank 2 and you cant get demoted to a previous league so I guess you start at bronze 10 at the start of each season cos you didn't mention that anywhere? Multiple tiers would be nice but that also just makes this more like randoms. Except large cruisers though right? Theyre just like regular cruisers. This is part of the problem of ranked, the game is not competitively balanced. The other problem is that there isnt competitive matchmaking, it's just playing against whoever was lucky enough to make it to where they are.

Sorry to hear you're still having trouble. The unusual issues you explain are a little confusing and I'm not sure how or why the launcher would be redirecting you to their website, or how the game is launched from wargamings home page... but let's try to proceed with a regular reinstall which realistically should resolve your problems. If you'd like to do a totally fresh install all you will need to do is reinstall the game and log back in using your existing accounts credentials. Your stats are all associated with your account and your progress is saved by WG on their servers, so if you do a fresh reinstall and log back in to your account on the launcher then when you load the game up all of your progress will be just as you left it. I would like to recommend that you fully uninstall the Wargaming Game Center launcher and World of Warships itself and reinstall them fresh. WoWS can be uninstalled via the WGC launcher, from the Game Settings button near the top. The WGC itself can be uninstalled using the Windows control panel. If you had trouble uninstalled WoWS then it may still be listed here as well and you can try to uninstall that via the control panel also. Once they are both uninstalled you should download and install a new copy of the WGC which you can download here. Once installed, log in to the WGC using the same username and password you use to log into the wows site and the forum via the account button in the top left. Finally you can start to reinstall the game, when that is complete you should be able to just hit play and you'll be back online. If you encounter any problems or would like a more comprehensive explanation of how to proceed then I'll do my best.

It doesn't say it, unless it's implied by "Reduced the bonus to engine power". As for the speed indicator, I'm not sure this indicates an issue. Z-52 with and without engine boost (the pointer moves only a small amount for the additional 1knt) Salem with speed flag, note that the arrow is in roughly the same place as it is for DM. Even HIV with its +20% speed boost active points roughly around the same area. Forward speed hits the top of the meter at the ships stock forward speed, but the same is not true for reverse speed with additional bonuses to speed forcing the indicator closer to the bottom but never quite hitting the bottom. Why does reverse behave differently than forwards? Who knows.

Since patch 9.5 the DM lego mod no longer increases DM reverse speed to 18knts.

I have heard of keys being "reserved" and unchangeable, such as the recent change to reserve the G key for submarines, however I have personally tested that replacing the shift key with the spacebar works in the menu and I even started up a test battle to be sure, so I am certain it is possible. Furthermore, if it locks up and hangs when using the menu that sounds to me like it could be a problem with your preferences.xml file which is where your personal changes to your game are saved. If the problem is caused by an issue with your preferences file you might be able to fix it with a settings reset. However, this will reset all of your settings to default, such as controls, configuration of the minimap indicators, interface options, etc, so you will have to reconfigure these things but it would almost certainly resolve your problem. It does this by deleting files like the preferences.xml file and replacing it with a brand new, default file so that when you launch the game the settings are as they were when you logged in for the first time. This only resets settings like the various boxes you have ticked or unticked around the game, all of your ships and commanders and resources are saved. Once you have done this you might want to take some time going through the menus and double checking everything, for example if you use the Full Alternate Interface Mode so that you don't have to hold down alt for full info you may need to switch that back on, graphics options such as general performance settings and UI scale to make things bigger may also be reset, and audio settings such as volume and choice of National Voiceover for those who prefer that also reset. Some things outside of the settings menu will also be reset, such as the hidden visuals using the menu on the top right of the ship carousel if you prefer to hide some of the ahistorical camos, and I believe (but can't remember for certain) that the tickbox that dictates whether camoflague and signal flags are automatically resupplied using dubloons is reset to enabled, so checking that this is disabled if you would rather avoid unexpectedly spending dubloons to replenish camos/signals is important. To reset your settings is quick and simple, launch the WGC and instead of clicking play select the smaller section of the button with the arrow to be presented with a list of launch options. The topmost option will reset your settings and then launch the game. If you are using mods with your game, you might consider launching the game in safe mode first (the 2nd option in the above screenshot) and trying again just in case a mod is intefering with the controls for some reason. If this does not work then you can try a full reinstall, which I think is the next most sure fire way of resolving the problem.

Just to confirm the process with you. 1. Navigate to the Controls page and find the artillery camera keybind in the list 2. Click the button beside artillery camera (the one that says Shift by default) to begin changing the keybind. Clicking this should turn the button grey to indicate it is waiting for your input. 3. Press the new key that you want to assign. Pressing Space should present the following; That should complete the rebind. If this does not work, how far do you get before it stops you and do you get any sort of error message? Also, are you able to set the spacebar for the alternative keybind rather than replacing shift?

The sniper view camera can be changed and bound to two separate keys. You can find the option to change it under Settings -> Controls and then you may need to scroll down the list of keybindings until you find Artillery Camera; (Click the image to zoom) If you choose a key that is already in use the game will not ask you to confirm the change, it will simply unbind the key from its previous function with a small, brief text popup telling you what that key used to do. I have tested replacing the Shift key with Spacebar to be sure that you can infact rebind this and it did seem to work, let us know if you have any trouble.

I suspect Hizen may need some form of buff if she is really expected to work with 32mm plating, 28knt max speed, 21km speed and IJN damage control. This is some high vulnerability for a tier 9 BB that is already paying for 12 guns with a 38s reload time.

I foresee a number of technical challenges to overcome to implement a feature that the game was never originally designed to accomodate and unfortunately adds relatively little to the games intended scope and development. I suspect the cost to add something like this would not be considered worth the investment, especially if the games 3D artists would like to maintain an overall standard higher than "PS1 graphics" which the ship models would likely fail to achieve when scrutinised from a first person perspective. Have you tried using the free camera (Left Ctrl + Left Shift + Backspace) in a training room? You cant fix your view to the ship as if you were stood aboard but you could at least see what they look like slightly closer up?

Despite being described as a recon plane in the above, the E16A Zuiun was fitted with air brakes and capable of dive bombing a 250kg payload.

Commanders are still only trained for one ship, so this only lets you multiclass them for premiums. Nothing is stopping you keeping currently trained commanders on their current ships and swapping them as you do already, theres no need to reduce down the number of commanders unless you really want to use Yamamoto on every IJN premium, etc.

You can choose to either retrain the commander to 0% for free or to 50% for credits and then spend exp to complete the retraining by clicking on the little + icon that is next to the retraining progress bar.

Directx12 has never been an option in WoWS. The graphics API option has existed since it was possible to switch from DX9 to DX11. However, DX9 is no longer supported so the option serves no function right now.

The current deck armor is definitely 25mm at present. But, that could just be a mistake with the current armor model.

What happens if you hit a destroyed turret, does that continue to damage the ship?

Maybe it's a version of the "glass cannon" BBs, like Champagne and Slava, but with a thin deck instead of thin bow/stern? Seems unlikely though.

That would not be added for the hybrids as long as it is not a feature WG believes that CVs can manage.