Ubertron_X

No it's by far not the worst ship on tier IX. If you ever have this impression it is because your play style does not fit the ship. I disliked the Neptune too, because I simply could not get her to work as designed, but that does not mean that the ship itself is bad. My problem with the Neptune was that I somehow did not manage to score consistent results, mostly because of it's increased brittleness and worse concealment range. One game I was king because everything seemed to work in my favour (proper spotters etc), the next game I made a tiny mistake and got two-shot for good.

Die große Frage ist halt, quo vadis WoWs? Soll a) jede Klasse jede Klasse im Eins zu Eins schlagen können und WoWs bewegt sich damit eher Richtung solo play, oder soll b) jede Klasse im Sinne eines Schere-Stein-Papier-Modells deutliche Schwächen aufweisen und damit auf Teamplay angewiesen sein? Falls a) muß jedes Schiff (auch solo) Möglichkeiten haben sich gegen einen CV zu wehren bzw. dessen Schaden zu vermindern, falls b) soll bitte (fast) jedes einzelne Schiff gegen einen CV auch Toast sein, dann darf sich aber auch kein Kreuzer mehr beschweren, wenn er alleine ein Schlachtschiff nicht packt (oder Schlachtschiffe welche richtigerweise Zerstörer nicht alleine besiegen können). CVs zu balancen ist deshalb so schwer weil es meines Ansicht nach nicht sein sollte, daß ein CV beliebig Zeit für einen Abwurf hat (Flugzeuge können bis zum perfekten Abwurf beliebig kreisen und das Ziel gefühlte 360° und mehr drehen) und genausowenig sein kann, daß er kaum Zeit für einen erfolgreichen Abwurf hat (Flugzeige schmelzen dahin, sobald der Flakbereich betreten wird und es kommt noch ein ganzer Torpedo an). Und das muß dann dank ± Matchmaking auch gleich über mehrere Tiers hinweg funktionieren.

Richting. Den Torpedos der Tirpitz stehen gegenüber: HAS, Mittelartillerie mit überlanger Reichweite und enorm verbesserte Flak. Vollkommen balanced. /sarcasm P.S.: Wir brauchen hier keine nichtsbringende Diskussion führen, ich kenne und befürworte das Balancingargument. Und auch wenn ich zugunsten der Spielbalance normalerweise kein Fan von "historical correctness" bin finde ich es trotzdem merkwürdig, daß das Schiff welches weniger lange in Betrieb war und nicht mal ein paar Doppeldecker, welche letztlich zu seinem Untergang führten, abschießen konnte, mehr Flak hat als das Schiff was jahrelang massive Luftangriffe erdulden musste und bei welchem ordentlich Flak nachgerüstet wurde. Das ist trotz aller Balancinggesichtspunkte irgenwie inkonsistent (late war Modelle = mehr Flak).

Die richtigere (aber nicht völlig ernst gemeinte) Frage wäre wohl eher, warum hat die Tirpitz weniger AA als die Bismarck?

Warum macht man nicht einfach einen Zwischenschritt, z.B. daß CV-Spieler erst ab x Spielen in T4 (x ~50) oder T5 (x ~100) keinen manuellen Angriffe mehr benutzen können? Auf diese Weise könnten sich Neulinge durchaus noch an manuellen Angriffen versuchen und exzessives seal-clubbing würde trotzdem unterbunden...

So even higher chances of completely missing entirely well aimed salvos even under 10km isn't a nerf?

Flags that actually do something are not for EU...

The simple solution is to raise the minimum CA number in any given game from 2 to 4. Alternatively it can also be 0. Lift maximum numbers for BBs and DDs entirely. This way you could take two unliked 5/2/5 battles and create one 4/4/4 (or 3/4/5 or 5/4/3) and one 6/0/6 (or 7/0/5 or 5/0/7) battle.

If the intention really is to prevent seal clubbing removal of manual attacks could easily be tied to the numbers of games played in the given T4 / T5 carrier. Lets say remove manual attacks for Hosho/Langley after 50 games and for Zuiho/Bogue after 100 games. This way new players or players playing new lines could still learn manual attacks and experienced players seal clubbing capacity would also be limited.

Too bad carnival is all about fool's freedom and breaching of rules...

You mean situations like KM CA torps being lauched at targets 10+ kilometers away even though we already have a clear torp range indicator on the minimap? Nonetheless I truly belief that an extra set of 'fire in the hole' commands would at least help some of the players.

Though looking behind is recommend in some cases (e.g. because you need to check if you still have support or if your team has already deserted you) in general no, you should not have to look behind you because you should always know if somebody launched potentially dangerous torps from behind. However as stated the game currently does a good job at preventing said communication. Might or might not be true. You could be an unspotted DD taking zero risk even while being in front and I am a spotted CA in dire need to delete or discourage an opponent who is threatening me. Anyway as already stated if I deliberately take the risk I will always accept the blame. “The biggest risk is to take no risk, or to take crazy risks.” As I am not doing the later I am fine, thanks.

@OP: As other already pointed out don't stay behind and try to play 'goalie' in a BB. However if your cap actually is threatened always do go back to defend because in random battles chances are very high that nobody else will.

Your torps your responsibility is undisputable. However I still don't get it why we do not have a quick command to warn teammates of potentially dangerous torps yet. I have seen too many incidents where teammates do a full 180° U-turn after a (at that time) safe spread was launched and it is always a pain in the a** to alert them via chat and minimap. The game is almost 2 years old, why is there no chat command like 'fish in the water'?

The problem is the meta shift in between games with and without CVs (same about artillery in WoT), especially regarding what is considered to be 'in position' and 'out of position' (a definition which has the potential for a multipage thread on its own). In a game without a CV you can perfectly be 'in position' whereas in the next game with a CV you will be way 'out of position' even if being in the same time and place and versus the same opponents (apart from the CV of course). Also the individual (not team) consequences for being 'in position' and 'out of position' drasticly change in between no-CV and CV games. If you are 'out of position' in a non-CV game there still is a chance that you will eventually be 'in position' at a later game stage. If you are 'out of position' in a CV game you will either be dead or crippled. The reason why artillery and CVs are treated with such hatred by most players is that their simple presence forces them to change their game-play. No artillery in game? Go hull down and rack up damage, kills, xp and credits. Artillery in game? Into the open no more. No CV in game? Lots of opportunity for lone wolf, gung-ho or other individual action (but also room for nonsense like 20km BB sniping). CV in game? Yeah great, now we can 'team play' by group hugging. Hopefully my AA CA is smart and does not get killed early. He is not, too bad, so I am dead too. Like loppantorkel already stated it is not the power level of the CVs which is the problem but the meta changes vs the rarity of them in the game.

Not finished Shinonome yet because I did the other mission set first. Missions are not overly hard if I can drag my sorry behind to play T8+. Should be a walk in the park for everyone regularly playing T10 (3x clear sky seems tricky though). Currently on mission set 4 of 5. AGS was a walk in the park indeed. Missouri 720k/750k free XP using a lot of Papa Papa flags and new years camo (and premium account of course).

The question is, is it rewarded enough? In WoT any damage done to a target while you can not actually see the target is split in between spotter and damage dealer which works exceptionally well.

Fully agree. My definition of 'murder blob' was more in the direction of standard battles where both teams sit in their base with at least 10 ships and who actually moves first usually loses.

You are certainly correct if you are strictly thinking in one player or twelve player terms (and even then I can see a solo DD or solo CA greatly contribute to the team effort, e.g. by stealth capping). However in my book a team starts with just two players working together. And just those two players working together can already do all the wonderful things you mentioned above. You don't need a full team of twelve players to be able to work together, just a couple of ships works perfectly fine (with the added benefit that without any sort of high command it is way easier to coordinate small teams instead of larger ones). And for me this is one of the most important aspects of the game: small scale action. On some maps (3 to 4 caps) it is even quite mandatory. And this is the point where any necessity to form 'murder blobs' is definitely killing many otherwise available tactical options, the most common 'necessity' being a pair of CV's in your game (note that I am not anti-CV per se, so below examples are just to highlight why I do not agree to their general impact on gameplay; submarines would probably fall into the same category). * Sending a small force to one flank to delay / stall / kite a superior opponent by skillfully executing a withdrawal battle, giving the main force time and numerical superiority to probably win the game? Sorry CV in game, no can do, will just pick them up one by one. * Split forces in a sound tactical move to get the (bow-on) enemy caught in a crossfire by sending a single or just few ships ship the other way? Sorry CV in game, no can do, will just pick them up one by one. * Etc. And that is what I (and others) mean by: Group hugging alone is by no means a guarantee for good team play, but forced group hugging will always remove (tactical) options. However I do understand that there are reasons why we have a game modes like 'standard', as for every player that despises them (like I do) there is at least an equal amount of people who like bigger battles.

QFT Necessity to form 'murder blobs' does not add teamplay options it removes them.

Game was done today. AS Hiryu vs strike Ranger. P.S.: It is too difficult...

I don't see how either way would be helpful because the current concept behind karma isn't helpful either. How you usually gain karma: * Playing good (both teams) * Assisting in chat (own team) How you usually lose karma * Playing bad (both teams) * Not playing like you are "supposed to play" (own team) * Misbehavior in chat (own or both teams) * Salty opponents (enemy team) And because of the above there is absolutely no way of knowing what caused player xyz to have a certain karma rating. You could be a decent but super nice and cheerful player who sits on a large heap of karma just because of your politeness or you could be a super-rad unicum player that single-handedly carries 90%+ of your games, however you are also a trash talker and downvoted into oblivion by opponents you just out-played. If I am not totally mistaken we will get a more WoT-like end screen in the near future, e.g. also showing the damage figures of all players, which I do consider more helpful than knowing any karma value.

First mission I completed by just playing the game. Before that I usually got stuck at 4/5 because I do not explicitly go for missions.