Ubertron_X

As far as I am concerned this type of content has a lot of potential for future use. As the old saying goes you have to make a statement three times until its contents will stick and as such a summary like this can surely help people to keep up to date. Even I - and despite considering myself an avoid news reader - sometimes manage to miss articles (not often, but still), for example I remember that I once missed a mission chain for a free HSF captain, probably because during that time I was on a business trip or on holiday and could not follow up the news as usual. What I do like especially is that all bullet points are there and backed by respective links to their own dedicated articles, so the new articles itself does not become overly long or convoluted. This means that you will be able to take a look at all topics at a glance and can then quickly decide if there is anything your might have missed or want to take a look at again, for example because you forgot about certain mission specifics, patch details or event deadlines. What is not so ideal is that by the time the news page was released (08.06.) some of the events and missions missions mentioned had already expired, which can surely be a disappointment to some readers, even if the articles themselves do contain a phletora of information about the topic at hand. I am aware that a recap like this can not always include just the events that are still under way, however if an event has already expired the wording in the bullet point should clearly reflect this.

Its very comfortable to play, however I have roughly similar stats in my Leningrad and both of them are severely ousted by my reload booster Shiratsuyu.

I do like this overview/review much better than the colloquial 0.10.4 TL;DR patch notes.

Good question as right now I have a Dutch, a Polish and a Swedish captain for Friesland, Halland and Smaland respectively (dont get confused they are not trained yet after the rework).

You are correct that in addition to the answers about game mechanics there is a lot you can do regarding gameplay in order to prevent excessive fires, i.e. not overextending your ship or minimizing your ships concealment etc. Staying at range is another means of minimizing returning fire, however the line in between riding your effective range and still being useful while doing so in a BB and having stayed back way too far and thus being useless is very easy to miss, especially for an inexperienced player.

Don't worry bro, ze Germans have you covered, "verschlimmbessern" is the word you are looking for.

I see the above and raise you: Breathe the pressure, Come play my game I′ll test ya. Psychosomatic, addict, insane. Breathe the pressure, Come play my game I'll test ya. Psychosomatic, addict, insane. Come play my game. Inhale, inhale, you′re the victim. Come play my game. Exhale, exhale, exhale.

This are all the things you need to know. In addition considering use of the Damage Control Party Modification 1 in slot 1 might be worth a try, especially on BBs that already have a long duration damage control party per default. For example you will gain an additional 8 seconds of fire immunity on top of your usual 20 seconds of fire immunity (for a total of 28 seconds of fire immunity) as long as your damage control party is running on American battleships.

I do not universally concur to this statement as I have seen many victories turn into defeat simply by onsetting cyclones. The vision impairment often prohibts finishing off fleeing ships, or providing long range crossfire from one flank to the other, or being able to overwhelm enemy forces simply by numerical superiority of individually weaker ships. On the contrary I have often seen a numerically inferior opponent gaining local numerical or qualitative superiority and win their isolated battles in time to be able to turn around and face your remaining forces when the cyclone finally lifts. Imagine you have just managed to win the western flank on Two Brothers, with the remaining enemy ships actively trying to disengage, while your eastern flank is still heavily committed in brawling range.

Sorry, but I might have mixed this up. For unknown reasons I was under the impression that the announced Ragnar and Repulse would be replacements for Smaland and Nelson. However as far as I can see no new FreeXP ships have been announced yet.

Personally I'd say it is easier due to the availability of special signals and camo, for example the German Black, White, Red camo, which yields +200% free XP. However you also need to keep in mind the aforementioned inflation (750k to 1m) and the ability to sink free XP into other activities, e.g. the Reserach Bureau, which I do use occasionally (not to skip the grind entirely but to buy modules for the ships in order to avoid having to play them stock). Apart from the ships already received via free XP I am currently rather conservative with spendings as I am near 2m again and thus closely looking at Hayate (or one of the announced ships).

Sorry to ask again, but those two statements are not the same thing. If the order of operations is Hit > Deto check > Damage, you can not explode on the first torpedo impact. If the order of operations is Hit > Damage > Deto check, even a single high damage torpedo may be enough to detonate an otherwise full HP ship.

The gameplay for cruisers may be a little frustrating at times but really follows a simple formula: If # of potential enemies > 1 don't expose yourself. A typical cruiser should not have any trouble dealing with a single enemy DD (which may or may not include killing it, chasing the DD off the objective may already be enough). Likewise many cruisers - if played correctly - pose a serious threat for single BBs, especially at higher tiers. The trick in cruisers is to conserve HP and not to die early. Late game the typically high cruiser DPM can easily start to dominate.

Edit: Read the title and post wrong.

Since the advent of MMORPGs during the early 2000s I do consider everything with a monthly subscription and a lot of time consumption as a kind of hobby. And while open monthly subscriptions are less and less common I do consider things like premium time or micro (or even macro) transactions a monthly subscription that for a hobby I am willing to pay.

Lets say calculations show that 100k coal should have a price tag of 100m and the starting price is 25m. Bidder A bids 26m in order to have at least a theoretical chance of winning however small it may be. Perhaps much fewer people are interested in or even notice the auction, perhaps not. Bidder B bids 100m. Bidder D bids 300m just because he can and he wants the coal. Bidder C knows that the approximate fair price should be around 100m, but he also knows that the game has attacted many whales and that the forum alone is full of bragging about high value bids like 300m. Finally goes in with 200m because he rather wants the coal while being fully aware that he possibly just overbid by 100m. Strategic bidding is a thing in those type of auctions. And for completeness sake I would very well have changed my bid if I had known in advance that we only have 1/4th of the winners that I assumed we would have. In fact I would have either upped the ante well into category B or really placed no bid at all.

This is how I understood it too. However players would probably have bid a lot different if it had generally been known that the overall total was not 20k winners but 5k instead, both on low and high bids, considering the most prominent bidding strategies: a) Setting your bid near starting price to collect any "leftovers" for cheap (which e.g. I did) b) Setting your bid in a region of what you think 100k coal should be worth in credits (e.g. factoring in coal ships or credits for cash conversion ratio) c) Setting your bid in a region that you think will likely win the action even if you might not think that it is a "fair" deal anymore (with the last part being optional) d) Setting your bid exceptionally high because you don't care about credits but only care for the coal you win ("whaling away")

My personal stockpile of (combat) signals is quite high despite using 6 to 8 flags (combination of combat and economic) on every single ship I take into battle since the game started. I have managed to accumulate signals by the following means: 1) Being a decent player, aka via achievements. WG removed this source of income. 2) Playing a couple of games in ranked each season, usually finishing in between rank 10 and 14 in order to get the flag. WG removed this source of income. 3) Exclusively selecting signal containers over ressource containers since a couple of years (when they changed the number of flags in the try your luck containers). 4) Buying 80 flags of the desired type each and every time new coupons are available (usually speed and detonation). 5) Completing most standing campaings or current events. Usually the amount of flags available in those however only slows down the signal drain. Instead of 1) and 2) I will now once in a while receive some flags for a) daily login or b) grinding base XP for even more signal containers. However I do reckon that the overall amout of signals received will be far less than before, so in my case WG has probably successfully managed to open the drain valve. I thus always have and will be monitoring the situation closely, even if my credit stockpile would easily enable me to buy flags if worst really comes to worst.

If you are desperate for signals you can always consider choosing signal containers over ressource containers. At an average of 24 additional flags per day (if you manage to get all 3 daily containers) this should lessen the stress on credits at the cost of coal.

IFA is a good skill if you know how to work it and you are currently not spammed at by another ship. As is PT. Both have their individual uses and advantages and disadvantages. Personally I use IFA on most cruisers to good effect. After a while you really get to know which cruiser is running which skill. If you aim at them and they turn immediately its PT, if they only turn after you have fired it is IFA (and/or good awareness). So when in a BB I often use the time in between reloads to make cruisers turn wildly by just targetting them. In my personal experience cruisers knowing how to use IFA are wasting more of my shots than those using PT. A friend of mine is running PT mostly and often gets shot across the map by ships that he can't even see, especially while being busy. And while this is not happening to me using IFA I overextend and get overwhelmed more easily and/or eat a couple more torps.

Decided to go for the 2 free crates just yesterday and got 12 special flags (Ouroboros) and 14 camoflages. No expectations set and voila, expectations met.

While technically correct on the global scale this does more often than not meet game reality when it comes to local conflict. For example you will play uphill a lot if the enemy T8 CV decides to focus on your flank while being in a T6 DD. In addition the algorythm that determines starting positions really loves to pair enemy high tiers with friendly low tiers, especially if you are playing in a division. Having 3x T9 versus your 3x T7, or 3x T8 versus your 3x T6 is not especially fun. Its not unwinnable of course, however you will probably have to play defensively, often receiving a severe beating while trading time/map control for damage and to hold out until your other flank has won the game.

Even if we consider WGs own askewed prices a six-fold increase in price for a non-special commander seems unreasonably steep for an increase of commander points from 10 to 14. For example I'd rather have 6 versions of commander Dasha than just the chance for an otherwise most unremarkable 14 point commander.

The most annoying thing is when - after a long streak of bottom tier games - you are indeed "top tier", however everybody else is also your tier, so the 'not-always-bottom-tier' claim has technically been fulfilled, e.g. getting an all T8 game after a lot of T10 games in your T8 ship.

1. I am not opposed to the detonation mechanic. Ships have exploded due to lucky hits or bad handling since the very first gunpowder weapons have been introduced and the mechanic - however well or badly received - at least provides some semblance of realism. 2. I am opposed to the new mechanics of receiving flags via grindable containers instead of receiving them for achievements as they have been awarded before. That having said there is one instance that I think is a good candidate for revaluation, namely the flags formerly awarded for detonating. The things is that while most other achievements and their related flags have been awarded for your active (and mostly good) gameplay, detonations are often nothing more than just plain bad luck. And while in the past you at least got some consolidation price in form of flags that kept you safe for at least 10 other engagements, in the new system you simply get nothing. You just explode and that is the end of the story. It took me a while to realize the impact of this changes from a psychological point of view, with the late realization only setting in today, when one of my division mates detonated early in a match and I thought to myself that the poor guy will now not only have to watch us finish the battle but with the new system in place isn't even receiving the tiniest of compensation for his bad luck. So if you ask me some kind of "reward" for detonating should stay tied with the achievement (e.g. an additional flag container or the old 10 flags solution), especially as detonation is a hotly disputed mechanic itself. Just think about it...