__Helmut_Kohl__

Whatever one might think about the name being inappropriate, it just doesn't make sense to block it when you're allowed to join battle in a "Kriegsmarine" ship.

It's the same as always: whiners are whining a lot and yet keep playing.

Mate, just go to the Training Room and shoot broadside BBs at medium and long range in Stalin and Slava - you'll feel the difference.

I don't wanna ride this too much, as we both got the point, but I said "citadel the crap out of them", not getting one citadel if you're lucky...

Sometimes you get lucky, but generally it is lacking the penetration to be consistent against BBs at these ranges.

Did you not have Stalingrad on day one? Because I did and people were super hyped on it being OP back then and generally cautious and focusing you. I honestly don't feel a difference to that with Slava - it will wear off. Trying to directly compare these two makes no sense, as they have very different roles. But if you want to compare the guns alone, I have say that - while I am a big fan of improved AP angles - Stalin is missing the ability to overmatch the 27mm extremeties of enemy cruisers, which Slava is not. And when we are talking about hitting BBs, Stalin can simply not citadel the crap out of them at medium to long range, which is where you see the most broadsides. And that is actually the point why I like Slava: it's the only ship in the game that is consistent in punishing those damn broadside BBs you see all the time in Randoms at medium to long range.

Same can be said about Stalingrad. Slava is a situational ship, but for people who are really into railguns, it's fun.

I have Ohio, Siegfried and Slava. Slava is actually the one I would pick if I could only keep one of them. But accuracy, ballistics and penetration are very important for me when it comes to BB guns.

Champagne is crap. With 6 guns and BC dispersion you will very often not get citadels at long range, even against perfect broadsides. It's nothing like Slava in terms of consistency. Since Champagne sucks at close range, you're just stuck with a frustrating ship.

I could imagine that FDR is especially useful to dislodge stationary AA clusters, as it can bruteforce much harder than MvR.

A cluster of Stalingrads in CW could create quite a scary DefAA wall though. In normal situations, the only problem for me are "inaccurate" Flak bursts that appear where they should not be, i.e. my planned path of evasion.

I really tried to make FDR work in a good way, going after DDs and CAs, but this thing just cannot do it properly. Not only are the planes slow, all types of ordnance leave a lot of reaction time too. Everything about it is designed to attack big and clumsy targets. In the end I figured out that you can only play it as a damn Sky Conqueror, which is super toxic and bad for your team: So what's the experience of others - do you have a good way to play this thing, other than using it as a silly BB-farmer ?

It's not really good and nobody bought it. So they removed it just to create a hype. It will be back.

Close range dispersion is not nearly as important on these ships as long range dispersion, which is why I did not elaborate on that. And Slava has no problem to go in later - it's somehwat like Yamato which also has bad horizontal dispersion at close range. Slava's vertical dispersion is still great then (very reliable for punishing closer broadsides).

Be aware that at long range Champagne only has horizontal dispersion comparable to Slava, but not the same amazing vertical dispersion. Since you only have 6 guns, you will very often have disappointing salvos, even though you have a broadside and your aim is on point. Frustrating ship to play, unlike Slava which is very reliable.

As soon as the CV angles a bit against your rockets, they're not doing enough damage. It just takes too long and isn't worth it.

You don't win many games this way.

The DD cannot create a crossfire "out of thin air", the same way AP rockets can. Torpedo Bombers can though.

I hope some1 told the OP that torpedo bombers can also create a "crossfire" in the same way. Can't be arsed to read all of it.

So FDR has no fighter consumable on the rocket planes. In my opinion this kind of design sucks - it should always be possible to support your friendly ships with fighters. I understand that the goal is to keep people from spotting enemy DDs with the fighters, as the rocket planes need a lot of room to attack and they are supposed to be useless. But teamplay utility should not be the victim of balancing decisions.

WG never states the actual chances for the gambles they offer. If you want a fair gamble, you gotta go to a real Casino.

If you want to improve your CV stats, you gotta start re-thinking instead of defending your tactics which obviously do not work. You vastly overestimate the spotting potential of the fighter. In reality it is quickly shot down by DDs and their support, while you apparently go and hunt some BB in the back. You will need to spot the enemy DD yourself.

If you want to win, you gotta at least spot the enemy DDs at the start. Some BB in the back would in most cases only be a good target to go after if he is low on HP. Otherwise you are robbing your team of important utility at the frontline.

That's delusional. Any decent CV player WILL find you if you approach a cap at the start. If the enemy CV is going for the same cap, it's always recommended to drop a fighter for the DD.

I guess you will have to rename to USS Lexington or Saipan, mate.