Nechrom

When the only effort made on a topic is trying to cram as much inflammatory language and insults into it as possible, you know you're headed for the trash-bin.

I'm not sure I follow You don't have to "de-select it for every flag on every ship". You just have to de-select it when you enable the auto-resupply option.

I didn't really enjoy the RU cruiser line that much either. I'm currently at Chapa and while they've all been very capable ships, it's also not a very fun playstyle. Their big turning circles mean that you have a hard time reacting to surprises or change from aggressive to defensive without making yourself vulnerable. So you commit to one approach and that often is the defensive one since committing to an aggressive approach early and that turning out to be the wrong choice means you're probably going to sink. You end up in this weird place where you have the guns and radar to be really effective close to caps and supporting DDs, but you're also taking a huge risk because of your inflexibility and inability to use islands for more than shelter. At range your guns work great, with great velocity, good damage and good fire chance. But your radar is wasted and you have a hard time affecting the battle in more ways than just farming as much damage as you can. KM cruisers have similar weaknesses but sacrifices some of that long range DPM for better close range tankiness, hydro utility and usable torps. They give you more options.

@KarmaQU_EU I like your topics. They're all like: "WoWs doesn't have enough puzzle-platformer elements. Look at Limbo and FEZ, both great games and they have much more puzzle-platformer elements than WoWs."

Win rate doesn't start being accurate until you have a whole lot of battles. Other stats like damage have a lot less variability so it's more consistent. My Iowa has even more awful win rate, but 96k average damage.

Ships in contact with the border lose 50% engine power. Super easy to hit as they are moving very sluggish.

Penetration is, like I mentioned before, a factor of a number of different properties of guns and shells. Players have mapped out curves for penetration over range, but it's not something you really need except for making theoretical comparisons. You learn over time what guns work versus what armor at what ranges, that's part of getting better at the game. For starters you can just go by caliber and ignore other aspects, then as you feel more secure with other aspects of the game you can start looking at the smaller details specific to different guns/shells. Whether HE does damage is a pretty simple calculation. For most guns it's "caliber/6 -1 = the armor you can do damage through". All KM cruisers and BBs as well as RN BBs get "caliber/4 -1" instead. If you pick up the captain skill "Inertia Fuse for HE shells" you can add 33% more penetration to HE shells. A good simple calculation to also keep in mind is how much armor AP shells can overmatch (same idea as WOT), which is "caliber/14.33333..." Penetration indicator makes not much sense in WoWs for a number of reasons. Firstly you rarely aim directly at the part you want to hit. Secondly ships feature way way more layered armor than tanks, so a penetration indicator would give very little useful information. You also have a lot of variability depending on where you hit and at what range with impact angles being steeper at long range. The best you can do if you really want to know the intricacies of a certain gun and its capabilities is to just ask or check out some videos of the ship in action with commentary.

What you're describing here is exactly how the game works. You just don't know it because you haven't made the effort to find these things out. As long as it's a historical variation on the ship then I'm all for it. But I'm sure you can understand the reason why this isn't the norm for most ships. First of all it'll be a nightmare to balance all the different permutations. Secondly from a developer standpoint you're spending much more time and resources on each ship instead of finally giving us RN DDs or whatever. You'd have to change the progression to scale off of much fewer ships since you still want as much play time out of the development resources put in. It's a design choice to stick to more or less a specific variant of a ship and instead give us variety though a lot more different ships instead. If you would have preferred the alternative, fair enough, but it's not a complaint I see very often. Either you spend time and energy trying to make the ultimate hangar load-out or you spend time mastering what is given to you. Either way it's going to come down to what you enjoy the most. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're new, but if you knew the history of CVs in WoWs you'd probably not wish for more plane customization. It was not so long ago we had more options for plane load-outs on the USN CVs, that was only two options btw. They had to go down to a single load-out because the asymmetry that the alternative could cause in battles wasn't fun for anyone.

Except that they nerfed the Japanese 25mm which is the mainstay of their AA-power. IJN ships was too powerful against CVs I guess.

Penetration in WoWs isn't a set value, it's a combination of several properties of guns/shells. Muzzle velocity, "Krupp" (sort of quality of AP shell), air drag, range etc. As with everything, reading some on the wiki about these aspects of the game will explain most of the underlying mechanics. Then just check out some YT videos to help put it into practice. Where to aim on ships will differ based on the target ship (not just its class) and what you are shooting at it. Without sounding too harsh, WoWs is more of a "thinking man's game" than WoT and WoWp. Navy Field had the ability to create "Franken-ships". While hilarious it's not very immersive and would just add yet another hurdle for inexperienced players. WoWs uses historical configurations for their historical ships and "best guess" configurations for their blueprint/fantasy ships. Some ships still offer a bit of customization like different torpedoes, but for the most part your customization comes from upgrades and captain skills. Which would be impossible to balance. No thanks. You can pick HE or AP bombs on a few CVs and regular or deep water torpedoes on one. A few CVs offer slightly different fighter/TB/DB numbers as options. Absolutely don't agree. The captain system is one of the biggest advantages over WoT. Juggling several guys per vehicle where the number and type you need varies from tank to tank... please miss me with that crap. That's your choice to make. For me WoWs is far superior to both the other on offer. Personally I prefer the planning and slower pace of WoWs where choices you make play out over a longer time. It has no gold ammo. No artillery. No broken spotting mechanics. No "oh you're one tier below your enemy, now you can't damage him and he can 2-shot you from any angle" For me there is no comparison.

Holy hell... Just kill the bots when they rush. A co-op battle without CV takes like 6-7 min tops.

Put context to where you are aiming, i.e: Is the place I'm aiming actually in the path of the ship? For anyone who has already mastered aiming the old-fashioned way it might not hold much value, but I can see new players being able to more quickly pick up aiming if they have two points of reference. If it's built into the game it's neither a mod nor an exploit. It isn't even an exploit right now since WG has explicitly allowed the mod on several occasions.

You know WG support is in a bad place when I would almost expect them to do this. It's like they are running on auto-pilot. I hope you get it fixed.

Having a situational ship is one thing, I'm always up for having something fill a certain niche even if it's not going to be particularly strong in general. But the Abruzzi has no specific advantage or play-style associated with it. It's just a very uninteresting and very weak ship. I'll come to the defense of objectively underperforming ships like the Huanghe because it's still interesting to play and has some specific strengths even if the sum of its strengths and weaknesses add up to a bad performing ship. I don't think every ship needs to be something you'd bring to ranked, but you still need a reason for someone to play them for fun.

More range wouldn't do anything since the shells from those piddly guns release parachutes at 8-10km and turn into the world slowest falling firecrackers. Legit worse long range ballistics than the Japanese 100mm guns.

Bought it (like always). Hate it.

I don't say this often about ships but when I do I mean it. This ships is actual trash. No redeeming features at all besides the heal, which doesn't help its main issue, which is that it's about as dangerous as a butter knife. It's arguably a worse d'Aosta, which I don't count as a particularly strong ship in the first place. You have effectively the same number of guns since your last two are unusable while firing in any forward direction. Your AP shells are worse and your HE shells are the same "worst 152mm HE shell in the game" as on the d'Aosta. You have a worse rudder shift but a better turning circle. At least you have better concealment. So how is having repair, hydro and AA consumable at the same time going to fix that? It's not. You have a large and high citadel that you have to try and swing around to dodge incoming AP as soon as you get targeted. Your guns traverse slowly and even in the best of cases do awful damage and don't start any fires worth noting. The most impact you can have on a battle is if you can find some DD to bully without being targeted by BBs and cruisers. But when you play like a normal cruiser lobbing shells against opportunity targets while trying to avoid incoming fire, you do so little damage that the enemy can almost disregard you. In a tier 5 battle I was looking longingly at a friendly stock Furutaka wishing I could just swap ships with him.

That could still be their plan. The feature was just added.

Since it was over-performing in the damage department that leaves reload as the only other viable option without changing shell parameters. Pushing the reload to 35sec could have worked, but wouldn't have made such a big impact on experienced players (seal-clubbers). I have no reason to believe anything else changed. BB volleys will always be RNG-based, even the most accurate guns will troll you. Are we playing different games? The MM has never and probably will never take skill/performance into account. They are only increasing the influence of RNG, not putting it all on random chance. The skilled will still club, just not as violently. As for shells and other things that carry over between ships, they have yet to break "realism" with different performance for the same shell on different ships with the exception of gun dependent stats like velocity, accuracy, reload etc. Alpha and fire chance are tied to the shells and doesn't change. I don't think they should change that just because you think the Orion needs to be more accurate. If they really wanted I'm sure they could make up a new shell for the Orion, but I think they are happy with the sigma reduction and so am I quite frankly.

My guess it that it's a combination of boosting from irrevocable ranks and just simply trying to drop on the same team when that's not an option. If one starts getting ahead they can do this "trick" to trade stars with no loss and stay close in rank so they can continue trying to get on the same team and playing together, which I think is their actual goal.

Or the one who first gets to an irrevocable rank just boosts the other.

Hahaha! You're a real joker. As if Kamikaze will ever be in a tier 5 battle.

I wonder what you would have changed to nerf the ship. 1.6 sigma isn't awful for low tiers. Wyoming has 1.5, Fuso has 1.5, New Mexico has 1.5 etc. For low tiers there's something to be said about lowering the skill ceiling for ships so that they are not as effective at seal-clubbing. And lowering the accuracy is pretty much the best way of doing that if the ship is in a good enough place to take a nerf. You also have a very limited number of things you can change which wouldn't carry over onto other ships. Change damage, fire chance etc of the shells and you nerf other ships using the same shells. So how do you then nerf the damage output?

The Shinonome is a strange one. It's a mishmash of highly detailed parts and old Fubuki-quality stuff. Despite being somewhat new, at least compared to the original IJN line, it has that really old low resolution texture (rivets, doors etc) and details like the winches for the torpedo ready racks are not there, only the low poly supports for them. The only thing that actually tells you it's a more recently added ship is the guns (really detailed) and the bridge (okay detail). If you look closely at all the IJN DDs (Special-types at least) you'll see that there is a lot of variations in detail. Both Akatsuki and Asashio have those gorgeously detailed guns and torpedo launchers, but there is one detail which only one IJN DD has which I absolutely love and would like to see on them all: cleats! (on the Yugumo btw)

It's a bit sad really. I can spend time just admiring the Asashio, Harekaze or really any of the fairly recently added DDs, even the Shimakaze despite it being in the game for a long time. But the Fubuki, Hatsuharu and Kagero look really rough. I don't know if just using the more detailed models for the gun turrets and torpedo launchers would help or just look out of place. Swapping between the Fubuki and the Akatsuki actually hurts the soul. She's such an old beloved IJN DD warrior, now relegated to tier 6 and looking like no one has paid her any attention in years.