Ubertron_X

The big question being: How do the supercruisers fare in relation to the regular cruisers?

Ever heard of the German saying 'even a close miss is still a miss'? If so you would know what the dispersion module is there for...

One Mr_Tingle was lost to ensure final victory! Nice to meet you too!

If you find detonations annoying, why don't you equip the anti detonation module for added protection?

You mean like, shell touches the end of your aft flagpole and damages your engine frequently?

They can always change the algorythms behind the scenes in order to make Flak brutal, the question being how to balance Flak at all? Make it an easy* to avoid mini game as it is now and Flak is indeed worthless. Set reaction time to zero (i.e. Flak clounds alway spawn within your squad, no matter what you do or how you maneuver) and Flak will be devastating. So the single most important thing for all surface ship and CV players is how to balance Flak, i.e. find an in between for "CV's can't touch me at all" and "CV's can strike me at their leisure", for it is both no fun for the CV players if their offensive efforts are in vain, nor for the targeted ships if their defensive efforts are in vain. * (easy for experienced players)

BB = fighter specialized in bows, sniping from range DD = rogue with improved invis sneak attacking everyone close enough with throwing knives CA = bard who primarily is master of none and only seconarily is jack of all trades CV = wizard with a permanent detect invisibility and magical attacks that neither care about positioning nor AC

Well, if WG can't program a proper auto pilot perhaps Boeing can...

Well, the actual plane mechanics already are pretty close to firing shells and watching them using Z, with CVs using "guided rockets" instead of shells. We now only need 20 seconds of "gun bloom" once a CV launches a quad so the other surface ships can fight back while the CV is spotted.

Yes, I stand corrected. What I was meant to say is that I got better results with the improved american (heavy) MK8 shells than with the Yamato shells.

Astonishingly enough in the beginning I too struggled in making the guns work. I neither hit well despite Yamatos guns which are supposed to be accurate, nor did I overmatch well. It was either shatter, overpen or normal pen and often I had better results with Missouri (due to improved shell angles I guess). It is a targeting issue for sure (which fortunately got better over time), however I concur that a Yamato that can't make its guns work is not very enjoyable.

Well, we for sure know that the chat thingy is working, we assume that the afk thingy is working and recon that the bad play thingy is not working at all. So if in doubt report for misbehavior in chat and perhaps you will at least manage to annoy someone...

So it seems the Tsar had no battleships...

While in principle you are right, there are so many variables to consider here. Lets take a look at the smallest team possible, i.e. only 2 ships. Team one is consisting of a secondary spec'ed Bismarck and an Akizuki. Team two is an Amagi and an Akizuki. So which team synergizes better and which player will call which player a camper? In team one the correctly played Bismarck will try to ride the visibility range and/or get to secondary range, possible tanking a lot of damage and keeping the enemy spotted for a lot of Akizuki smoke firing. In team two a good Amagi will also try to ride the visibility range but if in doubt will disengage to utilize the much bigger alpha potential of its more and bigger guns from afar. The Akizuki will now have to operate mostly on it's own and smoke firing chances will be less frequent. Teamwork goes both ways and good players already know what to kind of support to expect based on the type(s) of friendly ships alone. Which does not mean that those ships have captains that can utilize all aspects of their ships and/or realize in time what needs to be done in any given situation, people make mistakes after all. But you won't expect radar from a Mogami, would you?

The thing is, even when disregarding inexperienced, cowardly and/or foolish players, who might camp for various reasons, this games actually suits a couple of playstyles. One playstyle is the action packed, adrenalin pumping, aggressive brawler playstyle, the other playstype is the reservered, controlled and strategic approach, rather like moving pieces on a chessboard. So while one part of the players is "why are those $&%§* not supporting or following-up my decisive push" the other part is "why are these §$%&* charging in like mad when we can easily pick the enemies apart from afar"? And the former players will always "accuse" the later players as being campy / campers. Could there be ways to encourage decreasing the engagement distances? Of course they are. First of all I would balance (or modify) the XP and credit income based on distance to enemy forces and/or distance to caps. Ships that do all the spotting and ships that are fighting near the actual objective(s) simply need to be rewarded more.

I'd like to point out that without knowing player distribution the above is just a more or less valid assumption (much more on the valid side of course). A team with an "elite" and 11 bad players will on average still be worse than a team with an "elite" and 11 average players, i.e. a team can easily become worse without losing their "star" player(s). Also we would need to take into account the relative number of players better than you. If the player base is 10000 players and there are 10 players better than you then carrying will indeed have become easier as you will not meet the "elite" guys that often but can "club" bad players more often instead. If the player base is 10000 players and 1000 players are better than you then carrying might have just become harder because if we eliminate the other 22 players from the equation (counting as 0 contribution to winning the game) you most likely will have to single-handedly beat the better player in order to win. This scenario can easily be valid in cases where the "elite" player base remains nearly constant (because successful players tend to stay and continue playing) while the average player base thins out (for various reasons) and is replaced by a stream of new, inexperienced players keeping the absolute player base mostly constant while reducing overall quality. Note that most of my statements are of hypothetical nature as I did not check the distribution of players in the given player base in any kind or form.

Le Terrible tier VIII premium? 6.8km...

T8 still better than T10 (concealment wise). Mind blowing.

I somewhat like them, however some of the modes seem brutally unbalanced for random teams. HOWEVER I absolutely dislike that they do NOT count as random battles for all other parallel events (or only count for some aspects). If they would count I would probably play them more often, but alas WG I can't do the grind AND enjoy the space battles. Time is limited.

If you ask me GK could use some improved turret angles (this disadvantage is partially offset by the excellent armor), apart from that there is not much to complain about

If your karma is > 0 you are doing it wrong anyway...

As per the current gameplay iteration I fully second the removal of fighters from all CVs as they are usually not used to actually fight other planes, but to harrass DDs with spotting and to distract AA.

Players: How does AA work? WG be like: