Figment

IJN carriers were of course added in very late into CBT. They never seem to have been into the balancing of the CVs much throughout CBT anyway. The inter-aircraft and inter-tier balance has been ridiculously one sided. When they nerfed US CV carriers by changing their squadron load outs, they subsequently made IJN carriers far more attractive at the same time, despite the higher spread of torps. Which actually made it harder to dodge if fired at a side, than a narrower spread. Tbh. Since you can't outrun/outbreak it in a straight line or slight curve as you can with the US torps. Combine that with rather high damage per torp and likely your repair functionality being out (due to fixing after multi-fires started) and you can easily lose 30K to a single torp.

The main reason IJN perform so well over the US CVs is that the US CVs were stripped from crosshatching torp bombers, while IJNs can fire from three angles at once, which is virtually impossible to all dodge. I wouldn't mind this, if they would actually run out of back up aircraft faster. But they don't.

I ambushed them from behind an island, using the island to prevent torps, then am so close and they're at such a bad angle heading straight for me they can't launch proper since I'm almost directly in front of them and they just slam into my side. Bad DD players are pretty funny ramming objects. Or suddenly would veer into them by doing a hard turn if they got within 2km from behind. While they're aiming torps they tend not to steer much.

What happens is that those aircraft have to turn to get a better angle on your side, thereby exposing them longer to AAA fire.

Sure. I suck 1.5x your winrate on them.

They do better than your cruisers... Which is saying something...

CVs can sail over DDs and go on living for quite some time! Oooh those silly DDs not knowing the acceleration capacity of a Lexington. ^.^ I miss it.

I don't use premium and I get between 600-2000 exp without the daily multiplier regularly. That isn't bad. Thing is, BB players should gain more ACTUAL experience playing them before going up in tiers, because otherwise they just screw up the gameplay in higher tiers. Sadly, experience points poorly relate to actual experience. One other thing, Wargaming wants you to play the game a long time and spend money on premium. Most new (and sadly virtual all really, really bad players) just want to play BBs for their power. If they could all climb through it really fast, there would be little incentive to speed up the grind with premium. Worse though? You would have 10 Yamato's on each side in no time, spamming from 25km away.

There are a number of reasons. To name a few: * Language barriers don't help, but they're not the biggest problem since people aren't even trying to communicate in the first place. * One of the main reasons is you're playing with random people. You don't know each other, you don't have bonds, no trust, no idea how they play (even if you should from seeing their ship! But then people don't play ships as they should). That's why it's important to get a conversation started as soon as possible. * No preparation time to setup a plan. No guarantee that anyone would stick to the plan, especially bad players and no knowledge if the guy proposing the plan is actually capable of devising one, so lack of trust is a really big issue in combination with the lack of time to prepare. * Few and largely unintuitive/uninformative and even slightly bugged communication tools. It doesn't help that the most useful tool (marking a target as priority) isn't assigned to a key by default. This is inexcusable really. * Another reason is simply inexperience with playing together. Most people in online games don't know how to play with other people and since a lot of them have been brought up with solo games or deathmatch games, they don't even see the value of it. It's clear from people here who want everything to be rewarded by experience points that they don't really understand the value of teamwork itself and the effects it has on their performance, survival time and thus on their exp, etc. I tend to see people I know who played online mass multiplayer FPS game (PlanetSide 1) do much better in other multiplayer games even with random matchmaking, because they intuitively work with friendlies without even having to communicate. They just observe, see what the others are doing and act accordingly to compensate or strengthen. * A lot of players are greedy and in it for themselves. They just think of kill-mentality and "I need to get that kill". * Cowardice makes a lot of bad players think that safety is related to distance to the enemy. So sniping over sticking with a small group. Tbh, you should only consider lone wolfing when you're a very experienced player who is able to both lead accurately and dodge torpedoes well. And even then, it's mostly because you're forced to because the rest of your team created a big gap in your defense for instance. * Some try or want to, but they just don't know how. They're just incompetent until they've learned how. And no, that's not an insult, it's a fact: if you can't even if you want to, you're incompetent. :/ So playing experience helps. A lot of situations in this game are new to players. Particularly air strikes are both over- and underestimated. Small groups of three-four ships with half-decent AA can make an air strike next to useless, provided they work together. But this also goes for not recognising that a dead ship doesn't put out damage and instead of concentrating fire, spreading fire over several targets (especially the healthy ones) thinking that taking out more targets at once is better than removing damage dealers one by one.

Can you compare base cap points and defense to win and draw rates? Cap / defense per class would be nice too. I'm expecting that caps would be less relevant than defense.

You tend to use them on different ranges though, so if they are closer it would still be 20kts actually, but if you aim for distant targets, I think it increases proportionally to the scale of zooming. Think it is scales by 20 or 25%, not entirely sure. But you can keep using the numbers quite well.

20kts is the one zoomed in most.

Luckily your personal maturity has reached new heights.

I had a lot of trouble getting used to the Fuso's faster shell travel time with respect to the Kongo. Then realised what those things were. Almost added a third damage output and restored Citadel frequency.

GrazyC, you see the timer below your reticule and the marker in gunner mode? That's the travel time of the shell. The numbers on the gunsight relate to the travel time of the shell for a target moving at 20 knots. Try maths from there.

Yes, bad positioning isn't as severely punished. People take their ships to the extremes of maps and suffer the consequence of not being back on time. Just had a draw in my Fuso because a DD wanted to kill a CV, instead of killing the BB that was defending cap and defeating two clevelands. BB got away with 3K health. That's four volleys of Mutsuki HE. And even a Mutsuki can hit a BB reliably. With the two of them, they would have capped. Instead. He went after a CV he didn't know the position of and that was actually faster than him.

Well even with 13.2km range, I got top scores constantly (most losses were due to my team), but yes, there have been situations in which lack of range mattered a lot for me while fighting Pensacolas with actual skilled players in them. :/ Just recently got the full upgrades and now quickly undoing the bad winrate by being even more dominant. Some people don't have premium. Took me a lot more, plus I got the engine first.

In the situation where King of the Hill rules apply. Not sure when the last time in reality was a Yamato won anything, anyway. Taffy 3? Oh wait. That was a tactical victory for a bunch of destroyers and escort carriers. (They prevented the enemy fleet that was much bigger and heavier from launching an attack on the ground forces on the nearby island - hey, is that fighting over a piece of terrain? Maybe that Yamato shouldn't have withdrawn from battle and applied its DPS :p ).

Play more for control of zones. Less for dealing damage and avoiding taking it. The rest of your team probably already does that, leaving nobody near the zones but some DDs and CA, who risk getting overwhelmed without close support.

4.5%, some of which are my fault, some of which are my accomplishment, most of them my or the enemy's team fault.

And while you were having fun, someone was either beating you, or worse, nobody was beating the other. So it's a draw.

uhm, at 6km? That cleve is dead. An Aoba or even an Omaha I would see winning that with torps, but a Cleveland? Never. He should die in two, three salvo's max due to three citadel hits and some extra small damage hits (potentialy including secondaries...)

@Brushwolf2: pick one: - greed - arrogance - underestimation - incompetence - tunnelvision - situational awareness (time, direction and position) of a screwdriver - trusting someone else to do it - "not an honourable/fun way to win" - bully attitude - bad at chess and other strategic games - emotional decision making over rational decisionmaking - too busy with their own fight to look at the bigger map - stalled or detered by (good?) defensive or offensive players making them unable or unwilling to get close enough till those died. Only reason some people here see: - timer ran out too soon...

First volley of HE hits: Your engine/rudder is out! Torps/Turrets are out! + Fire! Oh crap! Losing speed/turning into the enemy! Repair! Get back up to speed! *magical 16s of INSTANT repairs and temporary invulnerability to any form of damage* Third volley of HE hits: Your engine/rudder is out! Fire! *sitting duck for two minutes as the repair, fire control and damage control crews ALL sip tea during their afternoon beautysleep* At least that's the impression you get from the difference between instant repairs and "nothing is being done". Fire for instance rages on and on and then just vanishes. You get poor feedback on how much damage is dealt by fire each tick and if it's actually being put under control (which make no mistake is what the timer on a fire is about: fixing things and putting fires out). The gap between instant and takes an eon is simply too large. IMO, it's the sheer difference that is very annoying. Damaging chance of random spam shouldn't be so high. Please increase the health of the critical modules to the point they can't be destroyed in a single volley of anything but AP hitting it directly. HE cripples ship's critical systems far too easily. IMO, crews on repair and all should have stamina. Fires and other critical systems should be automatically fought and fixed (and not in two minutes in a game where you have seconds before the next volley hits). The less tired they are, the more effective they would be. As captain, at most you should assign priorities to specific modules to be fixed or fires to be fought first, giving a boost to certain repairs (at the cost of stamina). The higher the stamina, the more efficient the fires are put out, but even at no stamina, they still try to fix things. I therefore propose that stamina is something that builts up whenever your ship is NOT under attack (a separate crew stamina bar) and can be spend like a consumable on fighting fires and fixing modules. The effect will be that the rate of fixing an issue temporarily goes up drastically, rather than providing an instant fix. This also ensures that if a module is hit, there's a temporary effect that's actually felt. On the other hand, as the target in question, you've got more control over the long term issues. So you lose some short term effectiveness and gain some long term effectiveness. This for instance would allow a DD in a duel to cripple another DD (or get crippled by cruisers etc) and for say 8 seconds actually have an issue, rather than "no issue" or having an issue for 1:30 minutes.