Figment

No. You've got a french avatar. It has pain in it. Learn to live with the pain.

Agree that under the circumstances he could have done worse, but then he should have avoided getting into that situation entirely. However, I doubt he dodged more by bouncing than if he had been moving and evading from a distance, showing his broadside safely in between enemy volleys. Dunno. I'd have sunk that Cleveland with my South Carolina, tbh. :/ He should have at the very least had gotten a cit hit with the amount of time he spend in combat, but I don't blame the RNG for him not getting that in this case, he's just got too few guns on target to get that crit hit chance high enough, IMO.

CV's don't do that PER MINUTE, per four minutes, maybe. If they're encountering dumb targets and are close to the action. You seem to ignore the entire striking distance (flying back and forth, which takes a minute) then reloading and lining up for the attack run. It wouldn't surprise me if you only play Bbs and CAs by any chance? Played some CVs during CBT? Because a regular CV gets on average about 40K damage per match at lower tiers, 80K or more at higher tiers, with spikes up and down. They might be forced to defend against cruisers or DDs, reducing their efficiency by a lot leading to even 0 damage, or if they encounter a field of BBs that don't move out of the way they might deal 120+K damage. Which is relatively rare and at higher tiers that's about the amount of Yamato hp. Please, don't troll out of personal frustration with CVs and do the maths of flight and resupply. And please do not assume dumb targets either. Good BBs don't take that much damage from a single salvo.

Much like the targeting marker in WoT, it's an unassigned key in your key binds.

Have the same idea. I've frequently been told to "learn another (their) language" when I ask people to speak a trade language like English, which is spoken as a first or secondary language by approximately 50% of the people in the EU, thus has the highest chance of getting your message across. But I'd be fine if they spoke German (about 30%) or French (about 16% iirc), or at least pinged the map too (really want communication tools for the map). I mean I already learned 6 languages. I can't learn all languages! Is it really so much effort to learn and use your own secondary language? :/ But some people think doing something practical like using a trade language in a foreign environment is an insult to their own heritage, an infringement on their soevereignty and nationalism/patriotism "rights". I've been accused of colonialism even by some Polish that said English language was just like Russian: trying to erase their identity. I giggled, then worried. I mean for dutch people, it's common courtesy to speak the language the most people in the room speaks. Which means that if there's a foreign person in the room, everyone speaks English or German provided that person can't speak Dutch. French would be an option, but not all Dutch can speak that well, so that's more of a last resort. (Besides, it's French, I mean: The French! *shakes fist in the general direction of France* ) ( <3 )

If he actually fired them perfectly, he'd have hit more than he did though (his leading was off when the Cleve started moving). In principle, you can kill it in one salvo with a couple well placed citadel hits... Some volleys will deal more damage too. Plus, you shouldn't engage a target alone all the time (certainly not go up alone against 5). An engagement like this should be over in three-four volleys of 9 shells (though I've done it in one volley in CBT regularly). If you hit even one citadel hit, then the average damage spikes: one cit hit among those 5 shots provides 10-14K + 4x2K for instance is already over 20K damage a minute, which means about 4-5K average, despite hitting a few shots at about 2-3K. And that's without other people providing focused support fire. Which he obviously didn't have. But let's say we increase the accuracy to 50%, with citadel hits becoming more likely too. That'd be 9x2K regular damage (about 18K), but with cit hits mixed in, you'd get say 3 cit hits (30K+) + 6x2-3K (12-15K), that'd be around 40K-50K damage per minute. That'd be overpowered. However, you'll have to agree with me here that he reduced the amount of firepower he had by a third?

It's just that accent that makes them so Bond villainy.

Some cruisers - especially at low tier - have 5.5km range torpedoes as their heaviest armament.

Only difference is that if you fire in broadsides (rather than utilise just a few turrets, as some people do at some angles for no reason), is that your dps potential goes up. The accuracy indeed doesn't change, but your hits over time increase if you fire more shells. Volume of fire mentality after all. :/

Best would be to start with motortorpedoboats. But I'm guessing they don't want those when they could be used against Yamatos. :p

Tbh, I think they should start with destroyers. :/ Immediately learn to use and appreciat the aiming of torpedoes. Then cruisers to learn to dodge torps + cannon fire, then CVs, then BBs, which turn slowest. By then though they know how a DD behaves and how CVs target you and why they would single you out.

It's one of the more heavily armoured cruisers, so yes, if it's angled, your AP shots can bounce off, so use HE at steep angles and switch to AP or wait with firing AP till the angle is almost perpendicular to the cruiser's hull..

No, I'm not being silly, but you've got the wrong mindset to play (battle)ships and it looked really silly to me. First off, you NEVER stop moving unless you're laying an ambush or need to minimise the amount of units firing at you using islands for cover and can accelerate fast (which you can't with a BB). You should have just turned around and maintained distance. Why would you maintain that angle or even get so close? You're pretty much surrounded by half a dozen ships, guarantee hits from the cruiser and thus constant fires, each of the BBs are within range and at a slightly different angle from you anyway, so you can't maintain an optimal angle as if you were playing a Maus or E100. You should have turned around 4km earlier and presented your rear at a diagonal so you could fire your broadside regularly, while they'd have to chase and you be a harder target to hit. You can't bet on bounces, they'll just use HE! :/ I see your shells miss and that's to be expected for 30% or less accuracy, since out of those 9 shells you can fire, you would miss at least six. So if you fire just six shells, you're going to miss all shells now and then. Instead you did hit (didn't hit the citadel) and the damage you did was normal AP damage, so I don't see your point except that YOUR expectancy does not relate to what the game allows. But your expectancy does not match balance. Don't forget that RNG chance applies to each individual shell separately. Hence why BBs are about volume of fire (balanced around full broadsides), not about single turret salvo sniping, which is what you want from it. When you aim at a ship, with the accuracy and cone of fire as it is, you aim for a general region, not - like in world of tanks - sniping modules. A DD allows that, almost, thanks to the high shell velocity and smaller cone of fire of the smaller guns. Compare the accuracy of a 127mm gun to that of one 2 times larger in this game. There's a reason for that and it's "not derping every bit of opposition into oblivion on the first salvo". Hence only if you fire a lot of shells at the target will you hit it when the unit you fire with is setup to be balanced around full broadsides. In your mind you should be able to just snipe a target exactly where you want it, which would be utterly overpowered with the damage potential such shells have if they hit the citadel. :/

I don't see any dispersion that's so wide a volley would "land on both sides of a ship". What I do see is someone not firing broadsides to use volume of fire for accuracy (you have 9 cannons, use them? Why should each turret deal sufficient damage per volley?) With 20%-30% accuracy, you're generally only going to hit one out of 3 shells or less, so don't fire just three shells! Damage chance seems normal, no citadel hits since they hit too far to the front, virtually exactly where was aimed btw. When the Cleveland starts moving, you're firing at the wrong lead so shells fall behind the ship due to their low shell velocity. You didn't compensate for Cleveland acceleration and speed properly. :/ A full volley on that Cleveland would deal around 7-8K (you did 5-6K already, which is a fifth of the target unit's health - considering he'd need to hit you a lot more, that's fine balance wise), if not 28K damage since the entire spread would have resulted in at least 4-5 hits, when well aimed with likely some hitting closer to the center of the ship, instead of the 6 cannons firing now aimed at the far ends of the ship. Battleships are about volume of fire combined with inaccuracy in WoWS, so... I don't really see the problem with that vid aside from pretty poor play, tbh. And no disrespect meant, but that's not how I'd position or fire my battleships... The angle is wrong, you stopped to fire, your positioning is completely overextended with respect to the enemy and you're even trying to sail backwards away from cruisers.

Worked for Amagi (and could work for Fuso quite well too, but most captains aren't upgraded far enough by then I suppose?).

Secondaries become good once you have the module with 20% range and increased accuracy, plus the captains skill for secondaries. Before that, they're not really worth it. :/

The main issue is and will always be that new players get into BBs too soon. They're not aware with the most basic concepts of the game mode, despite its utter simplicity and are not capable of discerning optimal ranges for penetration. Angle of impact relating to armour, etc is something that's generally beyond the general populace, despite it being really simple to figure out if you have any knowledge of maths - which a lot of people hate. To then also have to device a strategy and control the amount of targets and allies in your vicinity and encountering types of weapons (torpedoes) that they're not used to from other games makes it even harder for the new players. But the biggest issue there is the attitude of the new player, who is unwilling to admit the own faults, who is unwilling to experiment (playing it safe is the general attitude of bad new players: going as far away from the direct threats as possible, without realising that they reduce their own threat level in doing so by reducing their hit rate and dps. They'll easily camp and wait out what's going to happen to such an extend that they're even removing their dps from the fight for minutes at end. Instead of connecting this to "I need to play differently" though, typically you get "the game needs to adjust itself to my playstyle and skill level, even if I've got a coward attitude and a bully ambition at the same time". If it was up to me, people would not get into battleships until they got to tier 6 and only then go back to tier 3. CVs on the other hand should be available sooner than BBs: learning how people dodge your air strikes is important to know when you start playing BBs. Currently, it's the other way around and it results in CVs being seen as extremely OP by new players, simply because they cannot dodge properly.

Got some footage of this? Cause I got in the top 1% number of battles played during cbt and had 25% of my matches in BBs and cannot recall this ever happening to me. And during OBT so far the shells are falling where I expect them to. I do wonder if this occurs if there are things like lag spikes etc. If it doesn't then with footage we could rule that out. Regardless, accuracy seems fine to me at 20-30% for BBs.

Constructive topic. Seriously, a forum search regarding BBs would have given him fifty topics that are whining about "I can't bully everyone in the playground with my big stick! It isn't fair!". Sorry if I stopped giving a damn.

That people realise that the guy in that other ship needs a chance to win an engagement in a game as well and that this is shared common knowledge instead of someone demanding an extreme advantage based on him having purchased X instead of Y, in principle asking to obsolete Y. This is a game. Remember?

Personally I've found the retraining to be really annoying and illogical. I've noted this during CBT before iirc, but since open beta it's even more apparant. After CBT, I got two +9 skill captains and another +3 for the Arkansas Beta. Fair enough reward, right? Sure, but consider that I get a +0 captain for the first 18K exp worth of matches, at which point most the time the "grind" is over for the ship. Whereas others get at least a +1 captain after just one or two matches (which can make a huge difference in performance). That means that in this case, I only get to see the benefits of this captain in the (very) long run. I just finished the grind on my Wakatake and so far I have yet to play a match where I can take advantage of reduced torpedo reload, faster turning turrets, situational awareness, etc. Now, if I actually wanted to continue to play low tiers, I got several good perks where most others have few. ie. I'm probably going to be a bit OP from here on IF I decided to continue. But what good would that do? Get lots of exp to convert for gold from a lot of less challenging matches against new players and see the same ships and seal club? No, I want to move on. It's rather skewed isn't it? On top of that, I find it rather silly that based on a captain's retraining, you would suddenly get a boost from 0% to 20% for secondary guns. I would find it more logical that this is trained up over time. I'm also annoyed with having so many crews. I understand the marketing reasons for this very well, but I think it's wrong for this setup. I'd rather have a few less crew members, so there's a bit more "personal bond" between player and characters. I really can't name any of my crew in either Wargaming game and I sure as hell won't pay for a rename for generic crewmembers that nobody else get to see anyway. Hence I would like it that players can look what kind of crew setup they have used for each unit. Personally I'm in favour of a different system: All skills that may affect a ship are "active" for all captains, but captains do not take a skill one on one to the next ship, with one exception: perks that provide an extra "consumable" are not related to "getting to know the ship". Such perks should just be active, but require a grind separate from the ships. Consumable perks should have various levels of their own, increasing the amount of consumables per level up to a maximum of three. NB: the perk for an extra aircraft per squadron provides issues. In fact, I don't think it's a wise perk to have in existance given the impact on balancing. Instead, I think it would be better to switch this to an anti-panicking effect skill in several levels, Such a skill would reduce the torp and bomb spread impact of the AA boost (but would not affect the AA damage efficiency increase). perks for steering efficiency, fire fighting, etc. are largely related to "getting to know the ship". Such perks should go from a 50% efficiency to a 100% efficiency over time. NB: this means that perks like 'situational awareness' and 'aircraft endurance' would be active, but simply warn a fraction of a second later. captains remember perks for all ships they've sailed on, but each time they go to a new ship, the basic skills are: 50% (gold) 35% (silver) 15% (free) you can train one perk up from 50% at a time per ship you can set an experience distribution key using sliders on which skill to train per match. this should reduce the power distance between captains who just started on a ship The captain gets a slight boost from having been trained on multiple ships, this boost is at most 10%. This boost is a very clear cut average training on all ships for a specific skill (when applicable) * 0.1, or you could alternatively make a system where you could train this up over time, like the suggestion for consumables. Think the latter is more 'abusable'. Simply putting a captain on a new ship without training the captain then might actually reduce the effectiveness of this captaina little bit, until he is well trained on all ships. So if you just captain hop from ship to ship without training that captain for each ship, you'll end up with a worse average than if you have captains for just a few ships. This would reflect a "jack of all trades" captain over a "specialist" captain who spends all his time on just a single unit. The advantage though is that you can go back to a previous ship with little to no net change. Wargaming could charge gold for removing knowledge of a ship that you do not wish to train for. It also provides incentives to play lower tiers a bit longer. Seal clubbing for winrates you say? Expect more experienced players on both teams. More experience players present means more experience is shared between players too, allowing others to gain actual combat experience through tips and (annoyed commentary) faster. It provides incentives to buy some more ports and spend silver/gold for captains that have a lasting effect, so wargaming doesn't actually "loses out" on gold grabs, players might actually be more inclined to spend since the crew experience effects are not lost by selling your ship (is at least one reason why I refuse to spend money on skill resets or training skipping in WoT). Win-win. As an alternative (or additional bonus) to four: Captains get proficiency training for various overall classes of ships (CV, CA, BB, DD), on top of the aforementioned exp bonus. This rating depends on how many of the available ships in a nation's tree a captain has been trained on and the amount of battles played in total (say you need at least 100 matches per ship for the rating to improve). This encourages players to try (all) different ships and simply play a lot. This bonus could be an additional 5% or so. This would represent overall experience of a captain for commanding a specific type of unit. It would encourage having captains on different lines. In combination with four, this would benefit mostly the "jacks of all trades", but not such that you can just put it on a ship and get the bonus right away It would discourage grinding just an OP or seal clubbing unit. In combination with four, it would eventually undo the few ships specialist effect to a large extend. But that's not necessarily a bad thing as it rewards more experienced players. It encourages keeping more ships of a line in your port and sticking with a specific ship a bit longer. This should also make player ratings a bit more accurate compared to people who change unit after 3 matches with 2 or 3 lucky wins. Thoughts?

If at 5km you aim at or just in front of the bow of a cruiser or BB, there's no way the shots will pass both in front and behind the target. :/ If you said 8-9km, okay, I've seen that happen with a Kawachi (which is about its maximum range stock so not entirely unexpected). But at 5km, not as of yet. I have seen salvos fly under and above, or side and above and of course do less damage than you had expected, but not so wide it misses on both ends of a ship at 5km. :x It might be ship circumstantial, but I honestly think it largely has to do with a bit of perception bias too, look at your own accuracy for BBs: South Carolina: 28% Kawachi: 26% Myogi: 21% Wyoming: 22% If you compare to other ships, you're used to 36%, 45%, 47% for your destroyers and for your cruisers: 33%, 33%, 31%, 40%, 39%, 37%, 25% and 36%. You might notice that your BBs are between 20-28%, which is quite decent for a BB's damage potential and for your cruisers between 25% and 40%, while for your destroyers it's 36-47%. My accuracies are 21%, 22%, 30% for BBs, cruisers: 39%, 40%, 42%, 28%, 33%, 40% and 42%, destroyers: 49%, 51%, 31%, 40% and 38%. So I would say that's deliberate: Destroyers overall most accurate, cruisers second in accuracy and BBs, having the heaviest guns, least accurate. What might matter to this accuracy though is the layout of the ship (the amount of turrets). This accuracy might end up feeling worse with the Myogi, since it has fewer cannons with a full broadside (6 instead of 8). A Myogi would hit 1.2 out of every salvo, while a Kawachi would hit about 2. A South Carolina on the other hand would hit about 2.4 per salvo, at least mine does.

Tier 8 can compete with tier 10. :/ Not easily, but you have tier X on your side or a numerical advantage. Plus those tier X are usualy easy kills for DDs though (and very good exp). Just bring someone in a minekaze or something.

I don't know why, but you deal about a quarter to a third less damage with your battleships ON AVERAGE, than me. Not saying I'm a god at aiming btw. I just don't see the dispersion being so bad you never hit. :/ So I don't know why that is, but I'm guessing you aim too high (aim for water level or just behind the ship) and lead a bit better. :/ At 5km, I sure as hell am not leading far enough to get shots behind or in front of the target by default.

The funniest thing is he thinks that's the truth without ever looking in a mirror. I'll ignore him though, he's not shared anything but more lies and bringing up misunderstood and skewed data anyway. Shame he'll never understand averages.