AgarwaenME

Be patient. Make sure you scout well enough so you'll spot random BB's trying to hug the edge of the map or taking the "I'm so original so I'll go here" routes. If nothing else, fire torps across their paths from max range. Even if none hits you'll mess up their formations. But if they're going so close together, chances are they'll get in each other way trying to dodge them.

Nice. OP starts by talking about how the community seems better. Then he proceeds to spout the same "tomato" "noob" wannabe elitist bull-manure that fills WoT chats and that turns that community bad.

Manually dropping bombs on a target that's actively avoiding is likely to get you fewer or no hits since the spear is so small, which means it's more or less only usable on BBs/CVs that are stationary or streaming straight on. However, against an experienced CV captain that does not let his fighters spend all their ammo on your DBs and that do not kill entire squadrons (ie, making you able to send in attacks as his fighters return and rearm), you might end up doing nearly nothing while you can do nothing against his torp squadrons by going in without fighters. Currently you're more likely to get away with that setup since there's so few people playing CVs, but that might not last.

There are no ships with anti-torpedo armaments.

Why would you expect compensation? Anyhow, while it's unclear if they'll give out a ship to beta participants (given it's now a semi-open beta), 1k battles seems like a very high threshold.

Such a nice mix of drivel, clueless whining and posting something completely outside the subject of the thread. Congratulations.

But then all your objections here also applies to the enemy torp prediction.

Parking behind an island does nothing but ensure you'll be in the first place they'll look.

Yep. It would be ever so easy and nice and much less frustrating to turn it into the "best victory of the day" instead. Particularly is WoT since nowadays if I even play I just tend to do one victory per tank and leave it at that, and I picture WoWs will become similar in time. But it doesn't look like WG agrees given the history of it.

No no by all means BB captains, I like it when my food.. .. prey.. .. honourable opponents makes my TBs turnaround time as short as possible

It's also a nice way to do retraining. Tho there's a small penalty in not using the same ship type as not all skills are as useful or even usable.

The answer is, they don't.

If someone can hit with that many, you're doing things wrong.

You're surprised that a far lower caliber cannon does less damage than your main guns? Really?

I suspect the OP simply doesn't watch closely enough. I've had people claim this in battles several times, when I know for a fact that I dropped them exactly on the shore line. Also quite a few island are larger than the range of air dropped torpedoes so even if they could go through them they would lack the range to do so. May I suggest you stop believing you should be able to be immune to torpedoes by sitting on the beach? And do you know what's as little realistic as torpedoes going through an island (though again, that's unlikely to have been the case), and that is battleships sitting still in shallow water during a battle.

A large ship won't be much of a problem as a target due to heavy seas, as besides destroyers and the smallest cruisers they will cut through most of it. What will be troublesome is aiming as even a small difference on your end could mean hundreds of meters on the other end.

You are assuming the temperature reported is correct, it easily could be wrong. Try a more direct approach, if this happens again lift it up and feel along the bottom to try to find hotspots. 65c is somewhere around the point where it will start to feel painfully hot.

You say it with every post you do. It's the distilled essence of your whining. And it's more or less the content of the entirety of the rest of this attempted rebuttal. Just for once, get over your bias and look at what sort of ships the queue is full of. CVs are the LEAST played class of ships, and that's not because they're somehow able to pick a target and sink it at will. People are telling you how you can avoid or reduce the effect of attacks, but either you just ignore that because you yourself lack the skill to do so, and you cannot imagine that you're worse than anyone else, or you somehow think you shouldn't need to actively avoid them.

You keep excusing bad awareness and bad skills and keep thinking you should be able to avoid all damage (can you avoid all gunfire? no? I guess we need to make all guns less accurate). There are so many things a BB can do to minimize hits, we've told you a ton of them, but you keep refusing to think it's possible. And really? You think it's a problem that you have to think about survivability and how it eats into your xp/credit profits? Are you for real? And to continue to compare wot artillery with CVs? Why do you do that I wonder. Well it's obvious, you think artillery in wot was/is bad for whatever reason, and you know there are more people with the same idea, so making the comparison is an easy way to drum up hate so you don't have to make some actual arguments. Anyone who have played either would know it's utter and tiresome cow manure. Lets actually compare. WoT artillery hits high powered, hard to avoid, shells from long range and usually while not spotted. Which ships in WoWs does that? Well. none. Who gets closest? A bb can fire from beyond detection range (given that someone spots for him, which wot arty also needs) and cripple or reduce to half HP or less nearly any other ship in range. So that's close. Also many destroyers can fire beyond their detection range while doing the spotting themselves (though in that regard they seem closer to tank destroyers). Conclusion? It's a different game. In any war game range and detection will be important, as will avoiding fire. Thus your comparison is as I said, just a weaksauce ad hominem.

1. There currently are ONLY jap BB's in the game, so to call one nations BB's too strong is silly to begin with. And 3-5 torpedoes to sink any BB? Dream on. 2. I do love how you want to rewards yourself for using terrain, but punish others for the same. 3. Why would a ship with less storage space and shorter patrols have more torpedoes? 4. You cannot call the MM bad or in need of "fixing" when the available ships to make teams of is as low as it is, and so many favour BBs/CAs over CVs and DDs.

This really is a huge problem. I wish WG will implement some mechanics that lets you win by say, taking some area on the map.

It comes down to more than loads. To balance 4 torpedoes they would be wing mounted. Thus making the lead on each wing 4k lb, and one set would be mounted even further out. A setup with 3 is thus much easier to cope with.

Indeed, I've dropped torps just a tiny bit to close and have it not arm for the torp hitting the middle of ship as it's wider there, but explode the ones hitting closer to the stern and bow.

A torpedo can easily appear to hit the bow or stern as seen from above, but actually it's running under the hull (likely giving the lookout a heart attack). Could it be this you've seen?

And both the Bismarck and Tirpitz were attacked by carrier (and land based) aircraft, being instrumental in the sinking of the the Bismark, as were aircraft both attacking allied convoys and the subs hunting them. The mere existence of the British carriers limited the actions that the German surface fleet could take. You pretty much have to work overtime to somehow make yourself believe anything else.