Benser33

>0.5 is rounded up, so it rounds to 19mm. Previously this would mean that 19mm of armor would shatter the shell as you could only penetrate less than the result. With the change the guns will penetrate armor equal to or less than 19mm.

Yeah, idk how others feel about it but I have more appreciation for the Iron Cross than the swastika.

SAP shells themselves are just AP shells with short fuses and a HE charge. Ingame we have these HE shells but in reality a significant number of them are common SAP ammunition and not actually HE/HC at all. If you check the full shell data with an external site you'll see that where AP shells have varying degrees of fuse thresholds and timers (such as the RN CL AP 12mm threshold and 0.005s timer) that all HE has a 2mm threshold and 0.001s timer. WG are not trying to redefine the way RN CL AP works, they are trying to create yet another alternative to regular AP and HE ammo choices. Furthermore, it seems like you're making the assumption that SAP shells are somehow unique to the RN and therefore they should get the benefits, but despite being the nation to designate shells as SAPBC we are far from the only nation to use semi armor piercing shells/common burster rounds. Many ships had "SAP" shells to provide a means to engage targets of medium armor, relative to the heavily armored target the guns AP shells were intended for use against. German battleships including Bismarck and Scharnhorst etc carried SAP shells, they were typically armed with an AP shell and two SAP shells; APHEBC, one with a nose fuze, one with a base fuze. The Japanese capped common shell use in their 14cm guns is another example. One of the most well known examples of another "SAP" shell in this community is the Granata Perforante (Piercing Shell - using older terminology from when shells were HE) used by the Italian Littorio class battleships 381mm guns, this was the Semi AP alternative to their Proiettile Perforante (Piercing Shot - where shell meant HE, shot meant AP) sometimes referred to simply as Palla. While not referred to as a SAP round, Italian cruisers also used Granata Perforante as their primary round at a calibre of 203mm on Zara and Bolzano class cruisers. They fulfilled the role as the ships AP shell type though with a greater HE charge than other AP shells. Some people have come to suspect that the invention of these SAP shells ingame are a component of an upcoming Italian tech branch. SAP is just a term for shells with a armor piercing ballistic cap and a HE charge, which is the vast majority of naval HE shells especially at larger calibres. Whether a shell detonates prematurely depends rather more on the armor scheme of the target than the shell itself. You have an AP shell with specific performance characteristics and it is up to you to understand and use them in a way that optimises the results. Shells with low fuse thresholds should also have short fuse timers. For the sake of game balance any AP shell that can easily arm itself should struggle to reach past spaced armor. This is already the case with RN CL shells which are extremely good against everything that isn't extremely well angled (and not being able to reach the citadel is not much of an issue for ships that can produce so many consistent regular penetrations) and even angling against it is challenging. For the SAP shells described by WG to be a superior alternative to the enhanced AP used by RN CLs it would need to be significantly different, as described you would lose damage (SAP damage would be more than HE but less than AP), penetration (again, more tha HE but less than AP) and the RN improved penetration angles while gaining nothing. Increasing the fuze timer of the SAP shells would defeat the purpose of them on large calibre guns. SAP shells exist as an alternative to AP shells that have a tendancy to overpenetrate, RN CL AP does not have this issue as it already behaves very much like SAP and rather seems to perform better than SAP should.

The flaw with trying to find the right amount of combat performance buff was trying to find the right amount of combat performance buff in the first place.

While I would still prefer to wait for a detailed explanation of how this works, it is preferable in my opinion. I would rather reset and grind a ship line to obtain other, new tier 10s, than just upgrade what I have.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Worcester will be getting 16mm bow yet tbh. Henri with IFHE will only pen 48mm armor Almost all DDs lose out, particularly the IJN 100mm gunboats who will be reduced to 30mm pen, however the 114mm british guns will now penetrate 19mm armor thanks to the change of the penetration rule to "equal or lower".

double post

I would be happy to play some of my favourite low tier ships more if I could just receive some flags or a permacamo scheme, or even an alternate colour for it like some collections give. Maybe a little icon next to my name with "mastery stars" a bit like how Ranked mode rank emblem is displayed. Maybe emblems with impressions of each ship available for people who play those ships enough. I have every t10, my grind is done. You release new ships, I don't get to grind them, you just do some event and I get boosted to tier 7-8, play those a bit while I wait for the release then skip right to tier 9, play that for like 10 games and I have the tier 10. Maybe if you stopped releasing ships early access the new ship lines would give me something to do. I just spend my time playing for events or to do CBs and ranked etc for steel, or grinding for lego mods I wont use just to get the missions off my interface. To think you need to create such a system to give people something to do and that there is no alternative but combat bonuses is ridiculous. Legendary modules wasnt a great idea but even that is better than this, people will rather leave than accept it because they wont want to adhere to the requirements and play in an environment where such a thing exists, the scope is so huge and your justifications for it are absurd. You not only admit that it makes life worse for new players (but thats ok because prem consumables change) but you want to incentivise people to play in low tiers where they seal club people by making it easier for them to sealclub if they just commit the time to it. Even experienced players will suffer if they cannot commit the time to obtain the benefits, a clan without a range of upgraded ships will be noticably disadvantaged against a clan that does. And by forcing the system into "seasons" you remove any possibility of players who aren't actively playing catching up and upgrading their ships. You screw over new players cos their quality of life is reduced - theyll quit earlier or wont even start due to public opinion. You screw over veterans who are now obligated to regrind stuff whether they like it or not to remain relevant - theyll quit rather than be forced to spend so much time or become food to those who do. You screw over the players who left and want to hear the game is improved so that they might return - theyll never return when they cannot catch up to time gated but account wide progression. If you think cosmetic or resource only is not going to work I am not sure you have appropriately reviewed the consequences of including combat bonuses. Which ever suit-wearing, pen-pushing, money-grabber executive it is that is pushing for you to develop and add this feature really needs his head examined.

Can you add the class of ship next to the players name in chat? There are already mods for this but it seems like a straightforward addition to the game.

I'm happy with WG changing the mechanics behind sector AA but they need to remove the slingshotting before they can actually balance AA and not just introduce workarounds.

I see what you mean, I missed that they stated current hitpoints. Still, what I was trying to say was that I expect this change is aimed at doing something more like cutting 30-50% of a full squadrons HP, not 5%.

5% of a full squadrons HP would kill a single aircraft if the squadron had 20 aircraft. Consider it more along the lines of causing for example 4500 damage, a squadron of 8 planes with 8000 hp will sustain 4500 damage; 4 planes will be shot down and one will be left with 500 hp. If the same squadron was already at half strength (4000 hp) it would be killed instantly. We will need to wait for the specifics to understand how impactful this will be, regarding how much damage sector reinforcement will cause and how often players can use it.

Training Center is the worst idea you have ever had.

It also has 38mm torpedo protection instead of the 32mm that Iowa has so it has some added resistance to HE and protection from 460mm AP.

Blame WG. You can still get missouri in supercontainers or christmas containers but she is quite rare. You also cannot get Kronstadt or Musashi anymore.

In particular someone I know pointed out to me that the Alabama is now just worse than North Carolina. -Less range (23.3km vs 21.2km) -Less HP (66,000 vs 63,300) -Worse sigma (2.0 vs 1.9) -Worse med range AA (10 flak and 523 dps vs 9 flak and 423 dps) -Worse concealment (15.2km vs 15.7) -Worse rudder shift just (15.2s vs 15.3s). -Lastly, NC now has the improved repair party which heals 0.7% for 28s instead of 0.5% for 28s. Alabama has better +Turning circle (710m vs 760m) +Short range AA (818dps vs 666dps) +Torpedo defense (49% vs 19%) To top that off, if you look beyond the numbers in the stats and look at the ships armor model and layout, Alabama also has worse angles on her aft gun and her superfiring fore gun, her armor model is entirely covered in 32mm plating except for the 38mm deck and torpedo protection, making her more vulnerable to HE damage than NC and her overall armor scheme is thinner than NCs, although Bamas citadel is quite a bit smaller. Overall, Alabama seems to fall behind NC in many ways. Maybe the difference in the citadel design makes up for all of the shortcomings compared to NC but it doesn't make much sense to me as to why Bama would miss out on the repair party.

I believe the regular Mac installer still uses the classic launcher? https://worldofwarships.eu/en/game/download/?platform=mac

You could try changing the number to +00354 Otherwise, maybe change the 2FA mode to a mobile authentictor app or something instead of sms. If you must use the sms method you may have to contact support.

When entering your mobile number try adding the Icelandic area code +354 For example, if your mobile number is 678 1234 enter your mobile number as +3546781234

It is hardly historical, it's based around an alternative outcome to WW2 but the alien technology significantly changes the setting, with mech suits and energy weapons and moon colonies. And even if you could argue that it is, WoWS would either have to be educational (which it is not) or as artistically creative (which it is not, Wolfenstein is likely an exception due to its storytelling, something WoWS has none of).

I don't think that there is as much "artist creativity" in WoWS as you could argue exists in a story-driven, alternate universe game played in first person.

The Commonwealth, Polish, Pan-American and Italian ships have no unique commanders yet, you must recruit one the regular way. The remaining nations all do have unique commanders that could be earned or bought, either temporarily available or permanently.

I have gone to where I assume they led you to check the rules for myself. https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/general-news/ranked-12/#ranked-ships The "rules" for the ranked ships does not actually say that exp gets transferred... it could be that the exp was not moved to Hashidate because that was never offered.

Stalingrad is probably the most BB like cruiser.

Raise a ticket with support I think. https://eu.wargaming.net/support