Benser33

Strange, I'm not a Steam user so perhaps this process has changed yet again. Sorry about that.

The steam client is, by default, designed to use your steam credentials to login. In order to log in with a wargaming account you must do the following; Make sure the game is closed before changing client files. Go to the WoWS install directory, by default a Steam WoWS install would be found here; C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\World of Warships\ From there, go to the bin folder, then the folder with the highest number (which is the folder for the latest update) and inside that go to the bin64 folder Here you should find a file called steam_api64.dll, you should rename this file (rename instead of deleting so that it still doesn't work but if you have any problems you can simply change its name back). Now you can launch WoWS and log in with your Wargaming credentials. Important: You wont be able to use any Steam DLC you buy for WoWS or earn Steam achievements unless you are using your Steam credentials when you play, even if you are using the Steam client. You will need to repeat this every time WoWS has an update. If you have an existing WG account with >2500 battles you might prefer to reinstall the normal WGC version of the game and simply add it to Steam via the "Add a non-Steam game to my library" button which would effectively be exactly the same result as above but without having to modify the files every update.

I didnt say it wont be, but Kleber was designed to be strong at range with good ballistics and has good performance from both HE and AP, so it shouldnt have good close range performance from amazing torps as well. Marceau will play in close quarters more often to mitigate the problematic ballistics its 127mm guns have. Its torps are overall weaker but already had 1km extra range than Kleber. It can use them at a range that would be more suited to Marceau but not wreak havoc with them because the torp performance is much lower than klebers.

Marceau torps are 60knts, not 75, do 14k alpha, not 18k and reload in 150s, not 77s. The torp strike power to ambush was a reason Klebers concealment was nerfed. Not as big an issue with Marceau.

Yeah but you're not likely to bump in to a Kolberg in the same game as a Colbert. Same for St Louis and St Louis.

Well I guess Shikishima is less like Shimakaze than Yashima is similar to Yoshino.

So there are no changes to the actual invincibility window?

Class wide nerfs dont count. That would be stupidly powerful. The squad being broken up into multiple attacks and taking extended amounts of time is what allows AA to actually mitigate some of the damage.

This exploit has interfered with CV balance for long enough. I hope this change is effective.

I think it is a fair argument that if the game presents the final score as a player having 5 kills that it should therefore conclude the player earned a Kraken. The issue here was one of timing, pressumably the game was able to process the kill before completing whatever check it makes to present the Kraken. I have seen players kill each other in the same instant and both receive first blood, or both receive flesh wound, or infact neither receive flesh wound. The issue is one of latency and server timings and can never be perfect.

I'm pretty sure that if the kill is on the scoreboard it counts.

These are true in comparison to DM (DM is very strong in terms of DPM and fire starting but has lacking ballistics, fairly opposite to Nevsky who has poor dpm and fires but strong ballistics). Compared to all other CLs CAs; Its AA is the worst. It has the worst turning of everything except Moskva It has the worst HE DPM of all the ships that require IFHE to deal damage. It has better HE DPM than the ships that dont need IFHE except DM and Henri during MBRB. Its AP performance is difficult to generalise, it seems quite average compared to CAs but will probably lack penetration. Compared to CLs the dpm is low. Its fire starting ability to poor compared to CLs, but average for a CA. It is basically a CA that requires IFHE. Compared directly with Hindenburg who will probably be closer in playstyle; 1k hp difference. Hinden has equal or better armor in almost all areas and is a smaller target with better maneuverability, but Nevsky has that 50mm plating. Hindens citadel is much lower and smaller than Nevskys and is protected by a turtleback armor scheme. Nevsky is 4.5knts faster with almost 2km better concealment. Nevsky has more range by 1.2km and HE DPM, but Hinden has 50mm penetration built in. Their fire starting is similar. Nevskys 1000m/s beats Hindens 925m/s Hindenburg has the worst AP penetration of any CA, but it will certainly be better than Nevsky. Hinden AP wont arm until 34mm, Nevskys arms on 30mm, which is a common value at t10. Hinden has more torps with faster reload, better angles and more speed, but 2km less range. Hinden is also probably safer when within torping range. Hindens AA is poor, but still better than Nevskys in almost every way. Nevsky flak count of 8 is 1 higher than Hindens. Hinden has 1 extra use of repair party, access to a catapult plane (spotter or fighter) and has superior hydro. Nevsky has stealth radar. Nevskys advantages are, again, armor protection, shell velocity, speed and radar. But, it's armor is somewhat countered by its size and agility (or lack of), its shell velocity is one of the only good features of an overall uninspiring armament. It will certainly be a ship that sits at long range accurately spamming shells, it doesn't seem designed to achieve anything else. It needs all guns to get the most of its dpm, so it needs range to avoid its massive size getting blapped, the armor will help too. But, it's not going to be melting anything like a worcester or smolensk can, they do almost twice as much dpm, a colbert with all guns does almost triple. That said, I still feel like Nevsky needs either radar or concealment changed to be in the right place. Its concealment should be 12.8km not 10.8km.

WG only just stopped support for DX9, there are probably some DX11 features they want to introduce before they get on to DX12 stuff.

In reality, Tier 5 premium Exeter, Tier 6 standard Devonshire, Tier 6 premium London and Tier 7 standard Surrey are all County class heavy cruisers. Not only were there differences between the different sub classes of County heavy cruiser, there were a significant number of differences even between County class cruisers of the same subclass. The Kents were the original County class cruisers. They received a number of modernisations as later subclasses were developed. The London subclass was an advancement of the Kent, slightly redesigned to be faster and had improvements to the layout of the ships superstructure. The Norfolk subclass was an advancement of the London, with newer Mk II turrets and further superstructure improvements. The Surrey subclass never entered design stages but was intended to improve upon Norfolk with improved armor but be 2 knots slower. Exeter is a Kent type. Devonshire is a London. Surrey is a Surrey. HMS London was of course a London subclass but she specifically was subject to her own major retrofit. She received a totally new superstructure, her three funnels were replaced by two, she had a hangar fitted and two catapults. Her armor was increased along the belt and she received more AA guns. Ultimately this retrofit was a failure and was not extended to her sisters as she was far overweight and required significant reinforcement to cope with the excess weight her modifications had brought to her, as she started to stress and crack under the weight. In game, Premium cruiser London ingame is a representation of what HMS London probably would have been. Ingame, compared to Devonshire, she has a number of differences. Primarily, she has access to consumables more like a RN DD; a 10% repair party, a 3km hydro and a smoke screen (which is a regular smoke, not the RN DD smoke). Devonshire by comparison has a 14% repair party and a choice of DFAA or 4km Hydro. Then she has a number of other small differences. Despite having the same guns her guns reload 1s slower, do less HE damage while also having 600m less range, however her AP shells do slightly better damage and have more velocity. Despite having the same torpedos her torpedos have 1km less range, move 2knts slower but reload 10s faster. Despite having more AA guns her AA is somehow worse, total AA of 280 compared to Devonshires 378. Including the lack of option to mount DFAA makes Londons AA very poor by comparison. Her concealment is also ~600m worse. She has an extra 200hp and moves 1knt faster than Devonshire. Londons deck is only 19mm thick, Devonshires is 25mm thick, providing a chance to ricochet 283mm, 305mm, 356mm BB shells which London cannot. Overall I am sure she sounds like she has come off mostly worse by comparison to Devonshire. Every change is worse except for a minor 200 extra HP (but she has much worse repair party), 1knt of extra speed and slightly better AP shells. However, she does have a smoke generator. It lasts for 99s with a 15s action time for a total of 114s of smoke with a cooldown of 240s(160s with premium smoke), with the premium consumable that is smoke active 65% of the time and with premium and Superintendant that's 4 charges or almost 8 minutes of smoke, if used right this can increase her survivability significantly compared to Devonshire who must risk open water at similarly short range to perform.

Finally, a t10 battleship that can counter the Riga!

40mm highlighted. The stern and bow is 25mm. The deck and casemate are 35mm.

Yes, you have 121,183 coal + 57,760 coal via steel which = 178,943 coal so you are missing 4,057 coal.

This seems about right, although petros citadel isnt quite so thin. Of course, both citadels get narrower as they get lower. Petros citadel roof scheme is similar to Moskvas, but 10mm thicker. 100/80/100 compared to Moskvas 90/70/90.

Coupons you own should be listed here when looking at the shop. They should state the conditions of the coupon. When you buy something the option to use the coupon should appear with a dropdown prior to selecting a payment method, if I remember correctly.

Unless I have made a grave miscalculation, side by side appears like thus (sterns aligned so you can see Moskva is larger);

Can Nevsky have any stats better than DM or must it be worse in every way? Survivability 300 more hp Lower bow armor but 50mm waterline plate Better deck (until IFHE rework, then same) Better casemate (until IFHE rework, then same) 28mm thicker citadel Larger than DM by almost 15% Concealment 120m better concealment stock Worse aerial concealment by 400m Maneuverability Faster by 3 knots, one of Nevskys actual strengths 940m turning circle larger than DMs 770m 11.5s rudder shift time longer than DMs 8.6 Main Armament Stock range of 19km longer than DMs by 3.2km Base HE dpm of 200k lower than DMs 275k Nevsky requires IFHE to pen 32mm, DM does not Baseline fires per minute for nevsky, 10.4, for DM, 13.7 Base AP dpm of DM 490k, of Nevsky 356k AP penetration will certainly be lower Ricochet angles for nevsky will be 45/60, for DM they are 60/67.5 Despite being small enough that they require IFHE, Nevskys guns are big enough that they wont arm on 19/25/27mm plating when flat broadside and also have 0.033s fuse timer, longer than any CL. The shell velocity of 1000ms is faster than DMs 823 HE and 762 AP, again, one of Nevskys actual strengths Torpedos Nevsky has smolensk torps, DM has none. Nevsky would not really want to be within 8km but some is better than none. AA Nevsky AA is terrible. Same range as DM, much worse total continuous DPS, worse damage from flak. All it has is quantity of flak clouds. Of all of the t10s, Nevsky has the worst flak damage, worst DPS and worst range of all the t10 CLs. Of all of the t10s, Nevsky has the worst DPS, the 2nd worst flak damage (2nd to Venezia), the 3rd worst range (behind Hinden and Venezia). Nevsky does have 8 flak clouds base, joint with Smolensk for most flak. Terrible flak but still. Consumables They have the same consumables but Nevsky has the long range/short duration russian radar and DM has the medium range/long duration US radar. VS the other CLs, it clearly has the best HP, armor, range, shell velocity and the most flak, but that's it. It is the largest of all of them by a lot, its AA is the worst overall, its torps are joint worst with Smolensk, it has the worst concealment in all situations (except for aerial detection but the ships with longer aerial detection are because their AA detect is equal to their AA range), it has the worst turning, it has the worst dpm performance with both ammo, it has the worst AP performance vs small targets and it starts the least fires. VS the other CAs, it has the best concealment other than Zao (and DMs aerial), 3rd best range (Including lego henri) and no access to spotter plane, 3rd best top speed (including Henri with speed boost), the best shell velocity, and again the most flak while still being one of the biggest ships. It's HP compared to most CAs is below average, (better than Zao by 10,100, better than DM by 300), the worst turning circle of everything but Moskva, and compared to CAs its rudder shift is on the low end (with CAs ranging from Zaos 7.7s to Goliaths 12.5, Nevsky sits at 11.5, next to Venezias 11.6 and Henris 11.8), it's HE DPM is worse than DM, MBRB Henri and Venezias SAP dpm and none of these need IFHE to use that. Its fire starting is only average compared to CAs, its AP DPM is good but requires broadside and likely has worse penetration than any CA as the guns are 180mms, the torps are not very competitive among the torps available on CAs with long reload, low damage, the worst range, and the lowest speed. Nevsky only really has a few things going for it. It is similar to Donskoi. It does get better armor, better concealment (10.7 vs 12.6), 1km longer range, for its extra tier it gets 7k hp and it does better dpm (200k vs 144k). Its torps are sidegrades, 5knts faster but worse reload by 14s. Its maneuverability is worse, its AA is worse. Overall, it's not enough like a CL to be comparable, but it's not enough like a CA to be comparable. (I'm not comparing it to CBs.) It has good speed, armor, ballistics and range. But, it requires IFHE to enable some guns that really are not comparable to CLs in terms of HE firepower while not being ideal AP guns either. If there was such a thing as a medium cruiser, Nevsky would be it. If I was to change anything on Nevsky I would cut the radar down to 10km.

Alexander Nevsky armor scheme (Click for full size) Petropavlovsk armor scheme (Click for full size) Made by me, courtesy of armor viewer at gamemodels3d

it's not?

I wish the ship stats would include some more detailed information about the armor than just the minimum bow/stern plating and the specifics of the consumables.

I think it's reasonable to suggest that the RU CL line, much like the US CL line, receives an alternative Surveillance Radar that is <=10km to prevent stealth radar.