Benser33

You can buy the regular permacamo Type 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 that are standard to all tier 6-10 ships, but you cannot buy the Grigio-Azzurro Chiaro camo. I cannot think of many times in the past when such camo schemes became available again after the event. The permacamos from RN DD event, RU BB event, FR DD event, RN CV event, US CL event, New Year 2018 and 2019, FR BB event, Oktober permamcamo... I don't think I've ever seen any of these camos become available again. The only ones I've seen repeat are ones you could buy in the first place, like halloween/space/lunar new year camos.

I believe the exclusive mode includes surface ships as a sort of test for the public of both SS play and surface ASW, but purposefully separated from randoms and other game modes.

It's awkward because with CVs existing ingame that fighters must also exist in some way, shape or form because CVs are not authentic enough without an element of air superiority. But patrol fighters dont shut down a CV, they just deny an area for a period of time, that's not the same as shutting them down entirely. The CV can still attack elsewhere or wait, just because you can't necessarily strike the target you initially intended. A DD being zoned out of a cap by radar has to do the same, it's not shutting down the DD, it's just a short term counterplay, or a cruiser disengaging from a fight with a smoke or even a ship instantly resolving fires and floods with damage control are all counterplay in a similar vein. Infact, how do you even shut down an enemy CV when you having to fly to the area you intend to defend first in order to deploy the consumable itself. You can't be everywhere at once, simultaneously defending from the enemy CV in all flanks while also attacking the enemy. Logistically you cannot "shut down" a CV either. You can concentrate defending a specific flank or player, the enemy CV must concentrate their attention elsewhere, but they are still able to do so. Regardless of exactly how WG proceeds I'd approve of changes to patrol fighters that transforms them into a more defensive countermeasure with less utility than they have now, but it would depend on how they do that. I think the concept proposed here is some steps in that direction but not fully sufficient.

WG intends to release subs to the live server in an exclusive game mode some time this year, pressumably with a view to introduce them to regular game modes beyond that.

I dont see the issue with designing patrol fighters and fighter scouts to actually shoot down planes. Patrol fighters are more useful for spotting in most scenarios than they are for countering the enemy CV and usually placing them defensively involves a detour for the CV player. Include that they can then also be cheesed leaves little incentive to use them defensively when you can just provide 60s of spotting for your team. So clearly, Patrol Fighters need changes to fulfill their intended role. Fighter scouts are the best AA solution, they can prevent a CV from launching any follow up attacks if they dare enter the scouts range while it is active, even if the attacker gets their initial attack off its unlikely the CV can evade the fighter long enough to follow up. This makes fighter scouts more effective than DFAA, which only really serves to increase the lethality of flak clouds and thus make dodging them more necessary but doesn't really make that harder to do (Maybe DFAA should reduce maneuverability of squadrons caught in range, like reducing speed and lowering turn rate, so theyre more likely to hit flak?). Though, to the best of my knowledge, fighter scouts can still be cheesed, or at the very least despawn after engaging. Somehow, the catapult fighter scout is better at defending against bombers than a CVs own squads of patrol fighters, further dissuading CVs from bothering to use their limited patrol fighters for defensive purposes. I don't think that fighter scouts should be nerfed at all, especially not to justify buffing patrol fighters because that shifts more of the responsibility of defending against the enemy CV to the friendly CV (to receive the same level of AA protection as you did before you would rely on the CV using patrol fighters to protect you) and we don't want that. But, patrol fighters should be changed to at least perform equal to fighter scouts in terms of AA performance. Increased area of effect and improved responsiveness once deployed and nerfing their utility so that their benefits are almost purely defensive are helpful, but if they can still be cheesed out of their role then what is the point? I see, then this needs to be changed as well then I suppose.

A full squad of fighters seems to do thousands of damage every second, surely even 2 from the 7 fighters are going to do some damage. And just drop your friendly fighters ontop of the friendly AA, how are enemy aircraft going to drop close enough to engage but still far enough away to avoid the friendly AA even with a 6km radius? And with the suggested changes if you try to use your own patrol fighters to counter some defensive enemy fighters then those enemy fighters are going to engage your bombers within 1 second but your own fighters aren't going to arrive for 15 seconds, by which time your squadron is already dead. All this achieves is making fighter scouts redundant, no one would take a fighter that adds passively to AA if they could take spotter plane. And how can it be passive when the plane can be shot down? Imo fighter scout works and thats fine, there needs to be some sort of actual deterent for aircraft that isn't just the constant attrition of AA, cos actual AA only significantly impacts a CV player when they hit into flak or waste too much time. And its also fine that some ships only have fighter scout as a viable option for AA rather than having beefy AA and DFAA, their AA works in bursts and has charges rather than consistent AA damage. At least there is some nuance to timing fighter scout, albeit very simple. If patrol fighters are to be changed they should be a more effective AA deterrent, like making them more persistent and effective, but stripped of their other tactical value like their ability to spot. All fighters should exist to actually deter the CV player and prevent the CV player from always picking their own target whenever they want. It's just a concept that doesn't work yet.

Can't 1 or 2 still cause significant damage to bombers though, much like fighter scouts, and effectively allow only 1 more strike at most? The defending fighters are more likely to win their fighter duel with the added AA of the ships theyre placed to defend as well and then persist to protect against other aircraft, in theory.

What about if fighters didnt despawn as soon as they finished fighting their first target (assuming they survived)?

Why on earth would you want to deny yourself critical information? Players modded this functionality into the game and into WoT for so long that WG have now added it into the client directly because it was such a big advantage for the players and clans that used this feature against players that did not. You should learn to use it rather than turning it off. Maybe reduce the transparency to improve the contrast of the information on the minimap.

The changes are clearly intended to emphasise their use for defense at the cost of their ability to spot. The 15 second delay between activating the consumable and the fighters arriving to attack, even with the 1s reaction time change, seems mostly counterproductive in making them more effective anti-air. They should probably take this train of thought and take it a step further, entirely remove the patrol fighters ability to spot surface ships and make them even more responsive at providing air cover. With the larger area and the longer duration and additional charges CVs would have a lot more potential to actually protect their team from the enemy CV. But does that lead us towards an issue we had with the older CV meta where a teams best defense against the enemy CV was their own CV? Also, remove the aircraft "sixth sense", its a very powerful location tool that can be used to triangulate enemy ship location, I don't know why aircraft still have this. Like, just do this regardless.

You should elaborate further.

It was indeed due to end on the 16th.

Yes you can. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/199929-is-it-still-possible-to-get-gallant-from-dunkirk-containers-pt-experiment/?tab=comments#comment-4679152

This is more likely an issue with the GM3D model engine since currently it does not work very well live on the website. Pulled this myself checking a minute ago; Also a few of the stats are not correct, the AP damage and shell velocity for example. The stats for Arashi are even more off.

But you should be able to have it restored anyway by just paying the additional 10% "it's a premium now" fee quoted in the article? I would follow up on that, but I'm also going to ping @MrConway who might be able to provide further insight into the response.

This was a mechanic in the past, during alpha. It was removed either for balance or technical reasons. There is no need to provide added power to the largest guns in the game, their ability to overmatch is potent enough already.

I think the introduction of the Japanese prototype 51cm guns opens the possibility of the German prototype 50.8cm guns existing also. Even the German 53cm gun would overmatch 37mm. I am not aware of other "super" calibre naval guns, there is no historical precident for the existance of any other guns than these Japanese and German guns. But therein lies a problem, a German ship capable of overmatching 32mm. Combined with other German traits, specifically their massive survivability, I think a ship for Germany with this armament would either not fit their existing national characteristics or be hugely problematic. Not to mention at the expense of robbing Japan of one of it's most unique features.

406s can't overmatch 30mm which is a common midship armor value for cruisers at tier 10, and if the IFHE rework is any indication will be added to DM and Salem soon as well. This is important for Monty and GK that can't overmatch 30mm for modes like CW and Ranked when they play against ships exclusively of their own tier. It is quite sad, particularly that Monty is becoming increasingly less useful due to her 406s failing to overmatch 30mm. She might still have the highest alpha but it's the hardest damage to apply at tier 10. And I would argue that, on its own, Bourg is useless. In the upcoming CW season with a single BB it would be quite detrimental to take Bourg. I would agree with you though that the introduction of 510mm guns does not negatively impact the existing 406/381mm guns per se, their performance remains unchanged by the introduction of these guns. But that performance is in stark contrast.

The arming threshold is going to be around 85mm I think, unless they do something irregular with Yashima. The issue with taking IFHE on Yashima is that the hull is not really suited to a scenario where the guns are actually in use. You want to be avoiding that, not taking IFHE and seeking that scenario out. If you really want to use IFHE secondarys you're either taking ManSec/IFHE/AFT as well to get the full range from the secondaries and the necessary accuracy, which forces you to take one 3pt skill, which is a painful choice between SI, BFT or BOS, one 2pt skill which is either going to be EM (with 60s traverse time guns and the intention of brawling?) or AR to get max dpm from those secondaries. Essentially, you sacrifice either EM or AR, as well as a 3pt survivability skill like SI or BOS, and 4pt skills FP and CE so that you can take a ship with the worst gun traverse, the worst possible reload (even kremlin can take a 2nd shot in a brawling scenario before Yashima), the worst speed and a huge, vulnerable citadel into close quarters situations (because the best possible range is 10.5km) just to get some Type 98s firing. It just can't be justified. Yashima would need some major changes to seriously consider a secondary spec, I don't think we're going to see Yashima become the IJNs Ohio, she just doesn't want to ever be this close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Ägir

Alpha on par with Repu but with just MBM3 equipped Repu can reload in 21s compared to Yashimas 30. In both alpha and dpm it's damage potential is quite low, understandable considering its overmatch and dispersion.

31mm penetration on the 12.8cm secondaries.

The secondaries of Yashima have a total DPM of 758,000, including the 2x3 155mm guns. But, you cannot fire every gun at the same target due to their placement. You can employ, at most, 418k DPM to a target on paper before you start to subtract losses for regular penetrations and misses. I'd say the best use is enjoying their baseline performance against destroyers and the base amount of fires and they could cause in a close quarters engagement and not to invest in a secondary build.

Wow, the large cruiser dispersion. Thank you for pointing this out.

I have to question what purpose the maximum calibre promise served. Was it to protect Yamatos niche of overmatching 32mm and not allow that strength from slipping in to other nations? Was it to limit the potential damage of a single shell to around 15k? Was it to prevent WG from going beyond historical existing calibres into crazy realms of non-existant size? I am not sure what value this promise really has. I personally think its fine to include the prototype 510mm guns (and perhaps later even the H44 50.8cm guns) because if these nations had been given the time and opportunity to realise the construction of these planned armaments they could very well have existed. As far as balance goes, the Yashamis 510s are not game breaking, they may infact be inferior to Yamatos 460s overall. Also, on the subject of the Arashi, I have since this morning been informed that this could be a Haifuri School Fleet collaboration ship, supposedly there exists a Kagero with 150mm German guns and possibly a borrowed american FCS, so perhaps this ship is not WGs fiction but someone elses.