Ubertron_X

If the skill description is correct it does not work if sombody is targeting you with torps, only main guns.

Best DDs and therefore quite borderline are DDs that can do both: Gunboating and stealth torping / capping. True gunboats might be able to dish out a lot more gun damage but usually largely fail when it comes to 'true' DD duties. True torpboats excel at 'true' DD duties and might be able to severely cripple enemy capital ships with a single spread (if they manage to overcome all oposition) but usually largely fail when it comes to fighting over stuff on their own. So while a Leningrad may indeed not be an ideal trainer for russian DDs (e.g. you want EM to make Gremy and Lenin work but you don't need it for say Khaba) it is still a superior ship as it can easily transition in between roles as needed. It can fight back well enough to be a real danger to any gunboat (I've yet to see a gunboat that is not severely crippled after dealing with my Lenin even if it wins the firefight). It can stealth cap. It can stealth torp. It can hunt down lesser DDs due to speed. It can relocate to where needed due to speed. It's the versatility package that makes Lenin somewhat 'OP'. You don't need to be #1 in every department to get a good boat. In this case good is good enough.

Dear fellow captains, mods and especially devs, as per the title I herewith suggest to change the placement rules for payers within a division if said division contains one or more DDs and/or a CV. To recap the current rules the game always tries to put individual players of a division as close as possible to each other, not minding any possibly negative impact on overall gameplay. This however can lead to many unbalanced situations for the whole team, e.g. if a DD is starting too far back (Dominion or Epicenter game modes), or if a DD is starting on the 'wrong' side of the map (Dominon game mode) or if a CV can suddenly find himself at the front lines (especially dangerous for highly visible US CVs). As an immediate countermeasure I propose to simply skip the special division player placement for DDs and CVs, i.e. a CV will always start the game at a solo CV starting position and any DDs will always start the game placed as if they all were solo DDs. Thank you very much for your attention.

Nicht beständig genug da sie keinen einzigen Fehler gestattet. Spiele sind sehr binär, entweder Mörderschaden oder mörderfrüh im Hafen. Nicht mein Ding´, auch wenn ich sie deswegen jetzt nicht gleich hasse.

Russian battleships confirmed:

Just remove all borders and make the world 'round', i.e. if you leave line 10 to the east you will enter on line 1 from the west and of you leave line J to the south just will enter line A from the north. Same for shells and torps. Problem solved as nobody likes to get attacked from behind.

Apart from the difference in between players that want to play WoWs as an action game and players that prefer to play WoWS using a more tactical approach there is one big thing that is preventing objective orientated play. The majority of players (and I count myself among them) are simply lacking the necessary skills to fully gauge when to play to the objective and when to play defensively, resulting in average survival times of less than a snowflake in hell. And what do you do if you desperately tried to play to the objective and got shot to pieces in no time every single time, neither yielding much XP or credits? Right. You play cautious and/or camp.

QFT

The reason that people struggle is half bad wording by WG and half how math works. I don't know if I am fully correct regarding terms (non-native speaker) but I'd call it absolute and relative percentage values. If you chose 'Demolition Expert' skill, which adds an absolute +2% to your shell fire chance, and you already have a base 10% shell fire chance you will not end up at 10.2% shell fire chance (102% of 10%) but with 12% (10% + 2%) shell fire chance, which is 120% base value (with the additional benefit that you can actually look up that value in-game, whereas you can't look up your actual fire resistance). If however you chose 'Fire Prevention' skill, which subtracts a relative 10% from your enemies existing fire chance, and your enemy has 10% fire chance you will not end up with 0% fire chance (10% - 10%) but 9% fire chance (90% of 10%). P.S.: I know that the fire resistence formula is much more complicated, the simplified example was just to show that when figuring out percentage values you always need to know your basis and if it is absolute or relative figures you are talking about.

The trick with fire prevention is not that you get significantly less fires started but to have significantly less fires burning at the same time. Using it on my FdG it is really astonishing how controlled fire damage rolls in now with approx. one fire less.

Don't exactly know if the new skill really counts as two planes when calculating the maximum available planes, but yes this achievement is most elusive. Even while using AS setup the enemy CV has to be a total tomato in order to have any chance to get the achievement. And even then chances are that he will manage to sacrifice enough planes to some monster AA ship before you can shoot them down properly. So you not only need an enemy potato CV but he also needs to be bad enough to let *you* shoot down nearly 100% of his planes. Which mean there is absolute nothing you can actively do to increase your chances for that achievement apart from playing countless games and hoping for bad adversaries. Wonderful example for outrageously bad design choices (aka not your own skill decides but the lack of skill of your adversary). P.S.: Well...you could possibly grab a friend and try to do some CV sync drops, however I fear that this might be considered cheating, so I strongly advise against it.

About RPF two things are certain (random game point of view). First it gets stronger the more people benefit from it, e.g. if you ping an enemy position on the map and your team acts accordingly or you can tell your division mates if a cap is occupied or not. Also it gets stronger the less players are still alive or on your side of the map. Second there are many situations where the info provided is useless or next to useless, e.g. when you know that an IJN DD is in front of you but you can not challenge him because his back-up is better than your back-up. Some personal findings: * Did try on Shimakaze but was not able to use the information provided much, neither offensively nor defensively. Respec'ed for more fighting power. * Did try on Benson but was somehow not satisfied with the results either, so I respec'ed. * Did try on Leberecht Maas and found the synergy of RPF, hydro and smoke to be quite good. Kept. * Did try on Farragut and found the skill ok in lower tiers. Kept (also because this Captain is to advance to Gearing later in his career). * Did try on Edinburgh/Neptune and again found the synergy of RPF, hydro and smoke to be quite good. Kept. Though the skill is by no means an I win button (especially in random) I already found myself able to heavily influence some battles, especially while featuring the RDF & hydro & smoke combos. However I think that ranked and/or clan battles is where we will see if the skill is as broken as everybody (rightly?) assumes it is, or not.

Argument of pro CV faction: CV's are not OP. Just use Jutland like grand fleet tactics, amass incredible amounts of AA and deny everything they could ever do. Argument of contra CV faction: CV's are OP in Battle of the Denmark Strait small scale engagements that I do want to play. You simply can't have both. Either CVs can touch blobs, then they will be too strong versus just a few ships. Or they can only touch said few ships, then they will be way to weak versus blobs. Will follow closely which way WarGaming is willing go...

The questions is, who will get more out of this improvements? Unicum, good, average or bad player?

It is ok to disagree with others opinion and it is of course also ok to 'weigth' opinions. However I find the increased usage of player statistics to invalidate deviating opinions a thought-terminating cliché: "Bah, not an unicum player, that's rubbish he's talking."

I suggest to bother to learn the difference in between opinions and facts. If I live in a region where the weather has not changed for the last 30 years I am entitled to the opinion that there is no global warming. If however I live in a region that is either hit been severe draughts or severe flooding within the last 30 years and with increased regularity I am entitled to the opinion that there is global warming. Which has entirely nothing to do with the fact that most experts agree that there really is global warming.

Players who can not perform average are still entitled to have their own opinion. It's how democracy works. How about people without a certain income do not understand how capitalism works and are not entitled to vote?

Though I do not at all agree to the statement that CVs are bad for WoWs OP has a point in that CVs are very (too?) influencial to gameplay. First it's the mostly one-on-one setup. To use a football analogy: Put Messi (unicum) against any mediocre player and he will be able to outplay him almost every single time, and will also been able to easily trump him when it comes to goals scored by free kicks (striking power). However put the same Messi (unicum) in a team of 10 mediocre players and have them play vs 11 other mediocre players he may not be able to pull through every time because he might find himself not only in one-on-one but in one-on-two or even one-on-three situations. Of course you can always use teamwork to even beat a unicum CV, however this kind of teamwork does not come as naturally as beating a unicum in any other ship class. Why? Because surface ships find it way easier to work together vs other surface ships. A BB and a CV teaming up versus an enemy CV is not the same as two BB playing against an single enemy BB. Second CV enforce a certain type of gameplay and I am not quite sure if I like that. While it is true that a CV can easily be stalled by "teamplay" (aka creating huge murder blobs and use herd protection) an argument often fielded by "but CVs are weak against combined AA" advocates, CVs effectively eliminate small scale as well as decisive individual action. Enemy cap is deserted? Haha, CV in game, can't take it because if spotted I am toast (if the CV will not manage to sink me by himself). Flank is open and ripe for advance and crossfire? Haha, CV in game, can't go there because alone equals dead. And as a player who would easily remove standard battles from his personal list of game modes I am always disappointed when CVs show up because they simply remove options how this battle could be played instead. Please note that I am entirely not for removing or nerfing CVs but one needs to keep in mind that their impact in the game is huge and needs to be taken into account for any possible revamp.

The thing is that WG (WG EU?) has never ever managed to introduce a culture of open discussion for the European WoWs forum. And how should they considering that most communication is entirely going one way only (players => devs)? Also WG almost never shows up and offers credible and plausible explanations like: We did X because of Y. It's 99% more like: We did X. Not take it or leave it, because it's our way or the highway. And so all that is left to the community is some mob mentality: If they wont hear us speaking quietly we will bloody well make them hear us! But good luck with your iron door if the guy on the other side is listening to music with his headphones up...

As you might know we BB captains are very diligent and curious people and need to check if the line that marks the end of the known world is still there and unbend. If it is we will gladly come to your aid, albeit sometime later than you might expect.

DDs lead, others follow, end of discussion...

In my experience in random battles (clan battles would look entirely different): From the south fast cap A, but not hold it at all costs. Align BBs to first support B then C, depending on enemy position and movement. Extract A team alive and have them join B defenders. From the north it is vice versa. The most important thing on this map is to go for all caps *if* you can reasonably afford it. As for many maps usually the team with the better "rearguard" wins as even one lone DD can stall a whole enemy flank. And that is the very reason to always contest the nearest cap in almost any case.

Did not use it on Khabarovsk because I also use the captain in Leningrad and Gremy and needed other skills but I did not miss it at all so far. Tried it in Shimakaze and found that most of the time I can not make good use of the information provided so I respecced. Have it on some american DDs (Farragut and Benson) and they are doing fine with it. Also use it on Maass and found the combination of hydro and RL quite good actually. Used it on Edinburgh (now Neptune) where I found it quite helpful when DD hunting or on actual DD duty (usually stealth capping). Don't plan to ever use it on any of my BBs. As per the above the skill is not the universal solution for or against DDs as the information provided, even if very telling, might not be useful (talking only random battles here). For example you still can't charge / hunt a stealthy foe if he has any kind of backup (CA or BB). Also the skill gets stronger the longer you survive vs how much ships in total are still alive.

That was my "last day before 0.6.0 is hitting server = no-DD-play-possible-anymore" evening and I well remember a certain Atlanta shooting the sh1t out of the enemy team. Well played! ;)