Ubertron_X

* Played Khabarovsk (CE spec cause its also my Gremy and Lenin captain). Got RL'ed from the very start. Rushed to cap nonetheless. Spotted enemy Khabarovsk. Got in better shooting position due to earlier spotting and sunk him during the gun battle. Not what he was hoping for I guess... * Played Shimakaze (no RL either). Game had a total of 10 DDs. Not radio located once, and I even scouted for a Fletcher which sailed with me. * Played Maas (RL specced). Totally annihilated enemy DDs due to the combination of RL and Hydro. * Played Edinburgh (RL specced). Was not able to hunt down DDs myself much because the enemy DDs had strong BB backup, but blocked their movement and maneuvering which granted us victory. Verdict after one evening of playing: Skill is more or less OP on DD hunter ships like heavily concealed cruisers or (stealthy) gunboats (US DD T8+) but not worthwhile on others as you sometimes even will "announce" your presence.

Always remember that most skills are situational, the only difference is, how often does the situation arise and how dire is it respectively how much will the skill help you. In my experience you are either under heavy fire and would need to repair every 20 to 30 seconds or you get random hits (e.g. you eat one stray torp) and only need to repair once every couple of minutes. So the question is, how much is a -10% and/or -5% repair time is worth (11 seconds and 6 seconds)? Alternatively: Can you manage your encounters in such a way to make it worth?

I am a little torn in between IFA and PT as I think that it depends on the kind of ship & play style / situation which one is better. Having used IFA on all my cruisers before 0.6.0 I usually don't care how many people are aiming at me if they do not actually shoot me. Also I find it better to start evading once the shots are in the air (especially at longer ranges) in comparison to doing an early (or even unnecessary) turn as experienced players can easily hit turning CAs (of course an experienced player may also speculate on you turning after firing but that's always a gamble). Imagine you can't see your enemy because there is an island in between and you need to get to from A to B as fast as possible. Using PT you know that this enemy is aiming at you. Do you turn losing valuable time even if you don't know if said enemy can actually hit you behind your isle? However I do understand the benefits of IFA, especially if nobody is targeting you and you can just keep sailing broadside or if you are knife fighting already, e.g. as a DD vs an enemy DD and you need to know how many enemy support ships are setting sights on you. Or in situations where you are badly damaged and already running away and need to know who is still trying to sink you so you need to disengage further or if you can risk to turn and/or fight back.

If BBs job is to tank for the team, then it is my CV's job to protect me with planes all the time (and not doing some useless bomb runs elsewhere and ******* off to his inflated damage figures), my DDs job to to actively search and destroy enemy DDs, to do all the scouting and to cover me and/or others with smoke when appropriate and my CA's job to protect me from planes as well as any enemy DD's and CA's who wants to torp or torch me. Because roles is what teams are for. Also, who is the bigger fool? The fool sniping from behind doing little or the fool on the front lines dying bravely but alone? P.S.: The above is worded as an opposite opinion on purpose and not at all reflecting my own opinion, which is more along the lines of cro_pwr. However I always find it helpful to argue from both sides (or at least that's what I guess that an average BB player might be thinking along).

No. He is trying to say that all CVs should be bot (AI). No players allowed. Just one or two AI CV in every game on every team.

How about DD players hating CVs too?

First of all please do a consensus on what "strongest" means. Being able to endure the most hits? Being able to dodge/endure the most incomming fire? Being able to deal the most (raw) damage? Being able to extort the most area control? Being able to reliably win in an one-on-one situation? etc. etc. etc.

As I managed to fully miss enemy BBs (!) in my Friedrich and Tirpitz at ranges in between 5km to 7km this very weekend (shots aimed near waterline either went into the water or way above the enemy ship), what are the incentives to go close again?

BB campiness is all about incentives. So I will put this most figuratively and then ask again. If I am a fat, cumbersome guy with a kevlar vest and a flintlock rifle (BB), who maybe can even take a beating, what however is my incentive to charge into a phone booth (cap) with two fencers (DD) and a guy carrying a flamethrower (CA)? (this is a more or less rethorical question, but one that Joe Average BB players need to be able to answer to themselves in order to have any incentive to play to the objective)

To be honest I see 4 players not playing for the objective (which is of course wrong) but I also see one player who is totally overextended (which is also wrong), so the screenshot provided might not be as clear as you might think. It usually is the BBs who call the engagement distance, and if they do not go close for any reason (e.g. Colorado vs Gneisenau) you should adopt your playstyle to the teams playstyle.

And even statistics will most often not provide the full picture. Its all about how to interpret them correctly. For example damage <> damage. A DD having an average damage of 30k while primarily fighting enemy DD over caps is a totally different matter as a BB with 50k average damage fighting mainly CA and other BB.

'Ah look, another n00b CA who yolo'ed into the enemy team on his own...' - your BB players probably (/sarkasm)

OPs point is still valid. If you would have an unicum player in your team you would definitely want him to man your CV, especially at T8+. No other single ship has so much potential influence on the course of battle.

Any DD with suitable stealth and good torps. Yesterday a friend and I (both using highly visible T7 DDs; Mahan and Maas) brought an enemy Fletcher to like 1k HP during an initial cap fight before he managed to escape. He was never seen again that battle, torped 2 or 3 of our BBs for incredible damage and was #1 on the enemy team when they finally won.

Afaik 12.3km is the best you can do in either ship. Apart from that this is really enough to give many a cruiser a nasty surprise. Bismarck for aggressive pushes even against smoke (DD, RN CL). Go right in, start the fireworks at ~10.6km and see the enemy flock scatter (even works without manual secondaries skill). Tirpitz is better suited for stand-off fights or in one-on-one situations like rushing down bow-on campers. There is no clearly 'better' one. Due to hydro and secondary module vs torps and accuracy module they play rather different.

As per now approx. 90% "No". RDF will be the same bvll$1h+ as SA for everybody was. "Oh...I am detected in my CV...better start my engines and send planes looking for that nasty DD...." Yeah skill...

Met Corvi in his Essex (using Friedrich), who sank our team faster than our division could carry (also our Taiho was a total noob, trying to snipe Corvi, who killed like 48 planes without a single fighter). Also met Hanszeehock in a tripple Gneisenau division but managed to beat him using my Leningrad.

±2 matchmaking only sucks if you are not 1/3 top, 1/3 middle and 1/3 bottom tier, which for T5 actually is not the case due to WG ill fated 'newbie' protection. Else even ±2 is fair game. Also, it almost does not make *any* difference for a Kirov if it fights a Kongo or a Colorado because, same HP to delete, same firing speed, same number of guns, same number of cits needed to kill you etc. The Kongo actually is the more dangerous opponent as it has the speed to run you down.

As per my experience BBs and DDs handle uptiering rather well, especially if they avoid said one-on-one situations. A Kongo can still easily kill any T7 cruiser and a Minekaze can still torp and kill any T7 BB. However I have to admit that cruisers and CVs are somewhat screwed, as they are lacking the 'natural' enemies to beat, respectively those may just be too strong (e.g. have fun in an Omaha vs a Blys or a Leningrad).

This game mode is broken on so many levels it is unbelievable...

Exceptions that prove the rule!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobody!

The big question is, will WG go for an air war in between carriers or just asymetric air-to-sea damage races? To be honest I am not quite convinced of the later as far as gameplay is concerned. When CVs can fully ignore each other you can as well make DDs invisible to each other and remove caps so that they dont have to fight their counterparts anymore and can start to (try to) torp or shell capital ships right away. In addition, if CVs are 'just' asymetric damage dealers (and spotters) you may very well want to play with/against 11 to 12 others, but I can imagine that 11 to 12 others most likely do not want to play with/against you (psychological aspect). Also, will WG allow more skill in air group management (harder to balance) or less skill in air group management (easier to balance). For example (not promoting this idea, so this is just something to think about) WG could eliminate manual drop and strafing which would also eliminate some of the CV balancing problems in between unicum players and less gifted players as far as air-to-sea combat is concerned. Alternatively the skill based portion of CV play would then be target selection and perhaps something new like managing how you run things on your carrier, not your individual squads of planes.

You forgot to mention to always shout "ha ha ha" in a German BB whenever you score citadels...