Benser33

Who is putting words in whose mouth? You claim I argue above that Audacious is better and therefore more competitive than Midway when I said no such thing? Statistically it outperforms Midway in the only metric worth measuring for randoms and that is its results in randoms. If Midways tools are better than Audacious for randoms then why does it get less kills, deal less damage and win less games? Or is it just that Audacious has some sort of small above average fanbase that play above average while Midway is dragged down by some brainless USN diehards (which maybe it does, it has almost more games than haku and audacious combined)? Because even with the biggest possible sample, Audacious still beats Midway on averages. If you actually think that Midway can compete with Audacious in killing DDs with rockets then you really do not know what you are talking about. Sure, Midway may get lucky with TTs or even use HVARs for a more consistent DD counter, but in the long run Audacious rockets will produce better results. And ultimately, being able to consistently deny the enemy their DDs gives Audacious an edge in every single game. Audacious struggles more in games where the enemy is predominantly heavy armored, a scenario that Midway does not struggle in. But that case is not typical in randoms, team composition is generally mixed which is just fine for Audacious. If a games win condition is to deny the enemy their DDs then Audacious is the best CV for doing that. Which is why its not valuable for CW right now because the meta is just haku/stalin/venezia, the only DD worth bringing is Halland because all CVs struggle to counter it. I even enjoy playing Midway more myself and after obtaining Audacious I had nothing but absolutely terrible games but I will still maintain that if I want to actually win random games that I will take Audacious over Midway, and then I will not be an idiot and will take Haku because its better than both. Audacious has better tools for winning games than Midway. Well as I said above I prefer Midway and why would I not with an experience like this. I love my RN ships but every game with Audacious was just abyssmal. And every other RN ship. I'm not allowed to enjoy any of them apparently. My RN is cursed. But I still believe the Audacious is the better CV for randoms. Just I myself am not an example of this. I would question what you believe indicates that the Midway is better if not its performance? There is no other metric worth comparing. Popularity? Real world service? Value in competetive meta only? I agree with everything you say when you compare the two ships, except that your conclusion is that Midway is better. Midway is different, yes, you have clearly outlined the ways that Midway is different, it has its own advantages compared to both Haku and Audacious. Applause to WG for succeeding in one aspect of the CV rework by creating a CV environment where national difference are more significant. But it is worse, it is clear after months of performing worse and needing buffs that it is not as good as Audacious. Midway is the next best option after Haku for small team environments like current CW because it can deliver alpha quickly on targets with 50mm armor, which is Audacious big meta failing, but thats just how CW slowly devolves into something worse and worse as more and more people buy Stalingrad. During the season where people were even running teams of Klebers then Audacious would have been the best option. This decision is meta dependent and Midway being more valuable in CW right now is not an indiciation that it is overally a better ship than Audacious, just that what it brings is more valuable in respect of the current meta. When it comes to ship balance WGs priority is always randoms performance since that is 90%+ of time invested by the playerbase. And in that regard Audacious and Midway are incredibly similar in their performance, but Midway is always just that little bit worse. You can say it is better, but it still performs worse, and outperforming Midway is certainly proof of my original statement that Audacious does not need buffs. It's true they are really only valuable against DDs and superstructure, but they saturate their area so much that it's almost impossible to miss and the only outcomes are either multiple hits or majority hits, producing consistent results. And if you do get good distribution on the rockets against a DD with an effective attack run you can cause massive damage. And when it comes to consistent damage you've got; Tiny Tims full salvo of 14,580 damage (1/3rd of full damage so the actual penetration damage) Type 5s full salvo 17,010 damage HVARs full salvo 20,000 damage RP3s full salvos 32,900 damage Not only do Audacious rockets have the most actual rockets, producing more consistent results, but they have the potential to do significantly more damage if distribution does go in your favor and even in the worst case scenario you will get some hits because 42 rockets simply cannot all miss, you will always do damage with a strike with these rockets unless you mess up the attack run yourself. When Midway has TT equipped then the dive bombers are the better choice to kill DDs. And when it comes to stealthy DDs who turn their AA off and cant be spotted until you're too close to strike, this affects all CVs equally, but Audacious rockets can also turn around to follow up faster, reducing your targets time to react... The bombs are audacious weak point, certainly. Especially when they were bugged such that bombs took like 15 seconds to actually fall. The penetration is only compensated for with fire chance (stacking dots is something audacious does excel at) but farming dots without raw damage is not preferable and, as you say, relies on RNG... The bombs are also uncomfortable to use against targets that they can pen, like cruisers and DDs. They are a good tool to use against something that you know does not have DCP available. Theres not much to say about the bombs, they are not strong. 18 of them with 35% fire chance sounds like good odds and they could potentially start a full 3/4 fires on a target with a single run. But the results are unreliable and the penetration is lacking. Although on paper audacious is worst in damage, second in terms of flooding and second in terms of overall reaction time (torpedo reaction time and plane speed/concealment) Audacious does have an ace in her ability to turn and follow up on targets much more easily than the others. The strikes though are definitely not as impactful as her rivals, even Midways pathetic torps outshine Audacious in terms of raw output.

So more Midways and Hakus exist than Audacious. Probably because Audacious is 2 years younger. The sample size is still sufficient to demonstrate over almost 70k battles over 10 months that Audacious is consistently performing better on average than Midway. And its overall stats since the rework started demonstrate the same. No, and I said in my first post that in randoms Audacious is fine. Although better than Midway it is notably inferior to Haku, and thus is simply not viable for competitive. But this is an issue of Haku being too strong, not that Audacious is too weak. Then why does it perform worse? Also, this is wrong anyway, since Audacious' ability to decimate DDs trumps what Midway provides. The CV that gets less kills, deals less damage and as a result of its toolkit and parameters wins less games is somehow the better ship? There is no logic to this, and the fact that Midway has even received buffs in recent history shows it is underperforming. You said Midway was superior. In some aspects it is. In some aspects Audacious is superior. Overall, Audacious is superior. So, you are incorrect. You can argue they don't perform the same, that is blatantly obvious, we all knows they have different planes that work in different ways. But whether they are good or not depends on the results they produce. It is clear, and has been for a long time, that Audacious is stronger than Midway.

If you'd like something similar with regular torpedos you could consider Yuudachi but Asashios torps are only available in deep water, which is why they have such good concealment.

You could have just checked the original source I provided and seen that your comment was not actually correct since, with regards to the topic, Audacious is not underperformaing and infact consistently outperforms Midway.

True it was just those two months. And the two months before that And the two months before that And the two months before that And the two months before that Or like overall of all time since the rework. But other than that, yeah, totally inferior to Midway.

Except, according to stats, winning, damage and kills.

Many of the new year event containers becomes available after the next years event, so I wouldn't expect to see the 2019 new years containers return until we have 2020 new years container. All currently available containers for collections from the past are in the containers section of the armory, some you can buy once and start collecting naturally, others you must buy all containers via the armory.

2 month snapshot, Audacious is still top winrate and rivaling Haku in terms of kills and equally Midway for damage. For randoms Audacious is fine. http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html She has the best rockets for annihilating DDs, good dot chance on all armament, 41mm pen on bombs (which she can drop 18 of), easy to use torpedos, great turning on planes makes follow ups swift and good plane HP. Only downsides are the rockets that dont pen 30mm making them less useful on cruisers and BBs, the lacking options for damage against 50mm+ armored targets and the low plane speed.

Ludendorff is covered in quad barreled 30mm Flak38s which Germany did not complete development of in reality. However, its AA is inferior to FDG. Loewenhardt has a secondary range of 5km, for the curious.

But it's a slot 5 mod so no one cares. This mod actually supports khabas playstyle as one of the few ships that doesnt use concealment mod, but it wasnt worth using over steering before. Maybe now it is. Interesting, but I don't know who really wants to play utility Worcester? And if you built worcester for AA you'd AAM2 since continuous AA DPS buffs are the only really viable form of defense worth investing in. You may as well just remove it then. Yes, this is what HIV needs, more nerfs... Losing the 5% reload is a shame. Feels like a nerf to the mod overall since the 7% turret traverse gained isn't really that significant. Well anyone who actually was using this now looks twice as stupid. I still won't use it. Although this is quite a nice buff, increasing the remaining turret traverse speed by 50%, it's still only 7.5°/sec or 9°/sec with a slot 3 torpedo mod, so 20 seconds to traverse 180 degrees... not sure if I'd use it, but it's a nice buff. Overall, if this is mostly underwhelming. I would like to think that some UUs have been totally revamped and will be posted separately, but the Worcester mod is a total revamp so I guess that won't be the case. And no mention of CV UUs yet either. To me, this does absolutely nothing to improve the condition of UUs. Khabas mod I would probably try, although still not sure if it's worth the lost survivability, losing 20% of repair and speed boost as well as the rudder shift and steering protection of SGM2 is quite a price for 10% range and 6% reload. I'll assume that it will continue to be undesirable. Same for Shima, UU torps may turn 2.5-2.8°/sec faster than before but that is still 20 seconds to turn from one side of the ship to the other and with increased torpedo tube vulnerability, for 10% more torp reload reduction. I highly doubt gunboat smoke YY is worth playing. After these changes I will still not use Monty, Repus or Worcesters mods. I will probably not use DM or HIVs mods anymore. I'll probably keep GKs mod despite the nerf because it is a justified nerf tbh and I still like the mod. So you've taken 6 undesirable mods and 3 good mods and turned them in to 8 undesirable mods and 1 good mod. Good job?

Adding small amounts of steel and RP to daily missions is nice, but RP is still a poor concept. Looks like you used the ugly interface from WoT for the armory, pity.

Which book is this?

Not sure I fancy 12x 380mm guns at tier 9 especially with 32s reload. I think I'll wait and see what they change after they announce her.

Overall Ludendorf is worse than FDG. Although LDF does a massive 3 extra dps in the 5.2-3.5km area. Then FDG AA remains higher. Their flak performance is identical. Neither are especially impressive. The guns themselves are the 30mm upgrades of the 20mm Flak 38 that was intended to provide better performance against armored aircraft and was tested on a single "Zerstörer 45" enhanced Wirbelwind Flakpanzer.

I've never heard of anything regarding a unique submarine commander. The Arashi was announced a while ago. but its source and any related events are unknown.

There has been no mention of such a thing so far. Adapting commander skills for SS may happen at a later stage, currently its possible to make an SS captain with existing skills but its not hard to get all of the skills that would be considered useful. Arashi, yes. Kagero hull with 3x 150mm german guns and a US FCS. The ship has Damage Control, Speed Boost, Smoke and Hydro. No schedule for this yet, when it is scheduled there will surely be a homepage announcement.

Ludendorf can get 4 turrets forward up to 43°, GK to 46°, so Ludendorf can aim 4 guns very slightly further forward than GK. Ludendorf can aim 4 turrets backwards to 139° (or 41°), GK can do so to 144° (or 36°) so GK can angle backwards slightly more. So that's; 43° forward and 41° backward for Lundendorf 46° forward and 36° backward for GK 41° forward and 36° backward for FDG 35° forward and 43° backward for Bismarck (36° backward for Tirpitz) *smaller value is better

Stats are taken from the latest test server build via https://gamemodels3d.com/en/games/worldofwarships/

She has 5km secondaries. Dont know anything about the aicraft yet.

Just a parameter mistake. Like Azuma 305mm shells for her 310mm guns. They fixed that because it made a difference. The shells are called 380mm but the actual paramter is 381mm, which is because 380mm is 38cm but 381mm is 15".

Same with current Tirpitz and Bismarck

Guns are identical to Bismarcks. But 4x3 guns with 32s reload instead of 4x2 with 26s reload and 1km longer range than FDG. Gun angles are even worse than FDGs. Torpedos are the same as Tirpitz in terms of speed, damage and range (6km range, 64knts). Launcher angles are slightly better than Tirpitz.

They said many times during the announcement stream; if you have the Spee you are compensated with credits.

You can sell it any time before the maintenance for patch 0.9.5 begins. Once the maintenance starts it will be too late.

Oh you're right, I was thinking of the 4 ships they revealed per nation, but that included the tier 10 premiums.