Benser33

Then they would need to have the new mechanics and the old mechanics running simultaneously on the same engine/server though.

Until WG defines how ASW will work for all classes that have any I will reserve judgement. Although I am interested to see how SS will work in the game overall.

I was under the impression the change is due to arrive in patch 0.8.7

While it would do little to improve the AA effectiveness of the ship, I agree that the ships should probably have some additional AA range/a long range aura due to the 127mm guns since a long range aura should at least provide some clouds of flak.

Raise a ticket with support.

Did you even read my post? Every gun is capable of firing flak shells if AA shells exist for it. The difference is whether it can succeed at doing so. The Type A could not. The only ingame ships that used the Type B mount are the Akatsuki and the Hatsuharu. The Akatsuki gun is labeled as a generic 127mm/50 gun, the Hatsuharu gun is correct. There are no ships that should use the Type B that are labeled as Type C. I listed every ship the Type C existed on. The Yugumo is not one of them. Every ship that used the Type C mount exists ingame and all of them have the correct Type C mount ingame. The Yugumo is an error and did not use the Type C mount. The Type D is displayed correctly on the Shima but is wrong on the Yugumo, where it is labeled incorrectly as a Type C mount. The mount is Type D, it performs like a Type D and is modeled as a Type D, only the name is wrong. You are under the impression that the 127mm/50 was actually an effective AA gun when it was not. It was a worthless AA gun, the maximum elevation makes little difference. Whether the mounts enabled the gun to elevate to 40 or 75 degrees the AA performance of the guns was pathetic, and they did not fire flak shells, they fired regular HE shells with timed fuses for AA or the utterly useless sanshiki incendiary shell. They were terrible, terrible AA guns. And for the final time, the only ship with a mistaken gun is the Yugumo. It doesnt have a Type C mount, they have named it incorrectly. Be grateful that the Type B and D mounts ingame contribute to a ships AA at all.

The 127mm/50 Type 3 gun used in in multiple mounts; Type A: Fubuki - Was not considered a dual purpose gun, does not work for AA ingame. Type B: Ayanami, Akatsuki, Hatsuharu - All of these ships had 127mm gun mounts that enabled 75° of elevation and were considered DP guns. These all count towards AA ingame. Type C: Shiratsuyu, Kagero, Asashio - Technically considered DP but don't work ingame. (Shiratsuyu also has a 127mm/50 Type B single gun mount but this mount has the same characteristics as the Type C twin gun mount) Type D: Yugumo, Shimakaze- DP, works ingame. (Your observation of the Yugumo descrepancy is correct, however, this is due to WG mislabeled Yugumos Type D mounts as Type C mounts. This could be due to the close association of the Yugumo to the Kagero class, a relationship so close that even the Japanese themselves during the war confused destroyer Akigumo as a Yugumo class ship when she was a Kagero class ship.) As for why WG doesnt consider the Type C as AA guns, well. Considering the Type B and D performance as AA guns was already very poor. It is not enough to have enough elevation, turrets must reload, turn, elevate and depress quickly. The Type 3 did none of these things quickly. It also lacked any sort of AA firing director and the loading angle was so poor that the gun would have to elevate to 50-70° to fire, then depress back to 5° to be reloaded before being elevated again, and again it did all of these things slowly. Combine that with having a poor maximum elevation (such as the Type A 40° or the Type C 55°) and its understandable they do not contribute much towards AA.

I would approve of changing the TA-152s for JU 87s. But regardless of how, the AP bombers need to be changed, they are a joke as they are. And with the incredible fragility of the rocket planes I often feel like unless I'm using the TBs the planes I launch are just thrown away without achieving anything. I appreciated the TB buff that was applied recently but I dont think its enough to tweak some numbers in this instance.

I have seen demonstrations of exploits ingame from beta days, but never witnessed anything ingame that couldnt be explained by mechanics or a known bug. Most of what would need to be modified is on WGs server side and is out of reach to modify, what remains requires changes to the game client that the client itself can detect and WG bans people suspected of modifying the files or using third party applications without question and without appeal.

I think you are getting too tied up the "gimmick" concept. Every nation has something that makes it unique, which they rely on to be competitive with other nations own unique traits. Hindenburg and Zao are basically the same ship, right? Theyve got 12 guns and 16/20 torps, they fire AP and HE, theyve got hydro, dfaa, catapult planes, dcp, repair party. But no, they are not basically the same ship. Because despite being very similar platforms their individual attributes are very different and its those differences, like Zaos dispersion, torp range and concealment, or Hindens plating, AP damage, hp and repairs that make those ships unique from each other. Those are their "gimmicks" and they don't come in the form of consumables (unless you count the german hydro) they mostly come in having good (or the best) attribute of that kind that helps lead the ships towards specific playstyles (like Zaos kiting and Hindens HE camping from the back because it really has not got very much going for it brawling). Just because the Italians will have a play style that is unique because they have consumables or ammo that enables that doesnt make them badly designed compared to more conventional cruisers that rely on their exceptional base attributes to succeed. No one calls hindens +1 repair party or zaos dispersion a gimmick, people only seem to attribute this term to consumables. Having unique consumables or ammo isn't bad, especially not relative to cruisers who have unique dispersion or penetration angles or bow armor. Of course, unless WG [edited] up how balanced they are. Since only the italians will rely on creeping smoke and SAP shells for the time being, overtuning how these unique features work will only benefit the italian cruisers. Your concerns that the RM premium cruisers will not follow with the standard italians seems valid though, the premiums wont be anything like the main line of Italian cruisers and that doesn't make much sense to me but De Grasse isnt a lot like other french cruisers, nor is Lo Yang, nor Belfast, so they wouldn't be the first.

My reasoning is selfish but SAP shells makes the italian line more interesting to me than not having it. I've already got every grindable ship in the game and I'd like to see something new that wont feel like every other cruiser line. There's a difference between having a "box of gimmicks" and having nothing of note that sets one nation apart from the rest. I dont think that having creeping smoke and AP/SAP makes them any more gimmicky than RN CLs who have static smoke and AP-only. Having cruisers with different tools that require a different approach to succeed in the same objective makes the game more interesting. WG need to actually make those national features work though, particularly I dont understand why the SAP does more damage than the AP, the AP should be for the opportunistic strikes and the SAP should enable the ship to deal more consistent damage at the ranges and angles that AP is less effective. I'm more inclined to agree with Petes suggestion that they create a more compelling dynamic with the decision making between using AP and SAP than just removing what could be an interesting mechanic that could be impactful enough to the italian cruisers notably different to what currently exists.

If they do maneuver, they will need to do so intelligently enough that they do not beach themselves and such. Players will rely on their bots being capable of maneuvering in such a way that is not accidentally detrimental. This would be frustrating if a bot intentionally moves to avoid torpedos or a friendly accidentally gets too close to a bot and the change of course dooms that ship. If the do not maneuver then the team that can do more to simply torp the fully predictable and unchanging bot paths will have a significant advantage. This would be very frustrating if you will lose because you're supposed to protect bots who do not maneuver from a 3 man shima div, for example. Whether they maneuver or not, players will rely on the bots behaviour to improve their odds of survival and thus the teams chance of success. But escorts have existing in many operations so far, the difference being that players are defending the convoys from bots, not other players.

Bots will surely maneuver to avoid torpedos or collisions with players much like they do in operations, or so I imagined.

The US CV line is a reasonable all round CV line with quite strong tier 8 and 10 CVs. The state of CVs right now is a bit difficult as they are still making considerable changes to the interactions between surface ships and aircraft (such as the new AA reinforcement mechanic being tested on the PTS right now) but overall sentiment at the moment is that CVs are performing at the worst they have been (other than the periods they were unintentionally overnerfed and hotfixed) since the rework hit.

I agree, there are easier and better ways to achieve this.

The Scharnhorst camo with the icicles was an event reward camo. It has been on sale for 4k dubloons and Scharn also has two other permanent camoflagues, "Special" and "Z-32", which sometimes go on sale for 2k dubloons (because they dont change the geometry of the ship). Whether they come up for sale again or not can't be known for sure, the last WoWS birthday event had the other two camos available to buy at 50% off but the arctic camo was not available. WG have revealed a lot of other permacamos for mid tier standard and premium ships recently with no explanation of how to obtain them, they might be put on sale for this years birthday event. So, I guess the best answer to whether the camo will come back up on sale is; maybe? They will surely sell it again, but when?

Really? I got 24 hours of premium and a container with some flags, 100k and 5 premium damage controls. Double check your notification log.

Both codes give rewards (a mission for one, premium time and container for the other) even when you get an error, there is a short delay though.

This seems like something that will be challenging to implement well. It is interesting but I'm curious how many people will appreciate the the dependency on bot behaviour to win. I think it might be worth considering different routes on the same map so that it does not become too predictable.

The proposed values seem dreadful. Relative to other high tier premiums that can be earned with coal or fxp this regrinding sounds quite poor. And it's not even going to be a series of rewards based on what is described, if you earn 60,000 points and buy Colbert but is there going to be other rewards available for these points that we wont be able to obtain without grinding a further 2-3 lines just to earn the points for some perma camo we might like? I did not expect it to be currency based, I was thinking of something more like the daily shipments system where you earn a series of rewards for meeting milestones with a tier 10 premium at the end, with the series being changed each season. What you have here just sounds like yet another alternative to coal and fxp but with significantly worse returns.

The current season is teams of 6 whose members are from the same clan. There are no divisions. You must field a team of 6 and they must be from the same clan. CBs work by assigning the clan a numerical rating (the clan can have two separate ratings and the highest is represented) and you earn points with wins and lose points with losses. Enough points activates a promotion series of games and enough wins will promote that rating into the next league. None of this is irrevocable, you can lose enough games to drop right back to the very bottom of the lowest league. The most recent seasons were playing with T10 ships but this season features T8 ships. Teams are limited to 1 BB. CVs are not allowed. It sounds to me like you have mistaken some information relevant to ranked (tier 9 ships and irrevocable ranks) and ranked sprint (queuing with divisions) with details specific to Clan Battles. Rather than repeating information I'll just provide you a link to the article for the current season of Clan Battles; https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/general-news/cvc-6/

You are free to leave the game and start another with a different ship if you're dead. The ships that are taking part in ongoing battles are locked until the battles are resolved and once you are dead nothing you do will increase your exp/credit gains further (unless you can somehow communicate info to your team that swings the battle from defeat into victory). Nevertheless, you wont earn any more exp/credits based on your performance once you sink, so you are free to return to port and play something else.

Provided you survive the battle. Dev strikes against DDs is quite a good one though, and even if you [edited]up with some DD vs DD torping and die, you can get dev strike and flesh wound if you secure a kill after dying.

Strange, I see no reason why it shouldnt work but I can't test it any further personally since I've completed all of these objectives. Have you tried them with akizuki and made no progress?

Which objective are you referring to, specifically? The objectives I see that Aki is not elligible for are 1-4, 1-5 (requires BB) 2-3, 2-4 (requires CL/CA) 3-4 (requires CV) 4-2, 4-4 (requires BB/C:/CA and CV, respectively) 5-3, 5-4, 5-6, 5-7 (requires tier 10)