Figment

Except the person I responded to… did just that. Suggesting warships wern’t regular targets and therefore argueing they have no place in game. Which is a crap argument. It is a warship class. It is capable of sinking capital ships and others. Sure , it was mostly used against merchant ships due to the importance of logistics to the war in contrast to warships (a big role, yet for the western theater a far smaller, supportive role for the troops on board the ships subs tried to sink), but not exclusively. It thus can have a place in game. You do realize there are ships in game that never saw combat or even existed, while subs actually did engage in combat? By THAT arbitrary standard, subs have more right to be in game than paper ships. In fact, many ships in WoWs mostly fought back against subs during convoy and fleet escort duty. So DDs don’t have a place in game either attacking BBs and cruisers you say? What a pityfully bad argument that would make. So I’m sure you could bring up the couple times a DD launched a torp that damaged or even sunk a cruiser or BB. But then you’d admit subs have pretty much the same record. Hell, they sank more CVs. In fact, DDs can’t even quite claim sinking the Fuso on their own. Some cruisers with IJN long range torps, sure. But capital ships? Subs got ‘m there! https://www.quora.com/In-either-World-Wars-what-was-the-largest-ship-sunk-by-destroyers So what you’re saying is subs pretty much took out way more important ships to the war effort during most the war than other surface to surface classes and at a higher efficiency, until the introduction of escort carriers, long range flight, the breaking of the enigma code, ASDIC and improved radars being able to detect periscopes. Correct? What would be honest is you acknowledging I wrote exactly what you accused me of not saying… But hey, let’s pretend I did not write anything like “unsuspecting targets of opportunity” or otherwise outright said or hinted at anything regarding stationary targets and pointed out that their main job was to prioritise hurting enemy logistics, through ambush and take out unsuspecting targets of opportunity, like finishing of limping CVs or unlucky cruisers passing by. But that would require you to actually read the entire argument made and that wouldn’t suit your argument of attempting to paint me as ignorant. Right? No, it didn’t. Sounds like that would be a [edited]that would work well in WoWs… Given the lack of attempts at fleet play and amount of camping by players, the amount of chokepoints, small maps and central objectives placement. I don’t see any reason why this definition of yours couldn’t be adapted to the game in a way that makes the unit class viable. In fact, why it couldn't be made fair. We already have another stealth class that punches well above its historical weight and role in DDs. They were made to work. Again, it would take a redesign and a redefinition of the ill-defined vision and Raison d’Être WG has for subs. But to conclude on the basis of history (lol) and WGs initial concept (which hasn’t really changed since it was first shown years ago aside from weapons and introducing more ad hoc counterweapons rather than revisiting the subs basic parameters and gameplay design) that they could never have a place at all is ridiculous hyperbole. Oh wait, you’re prejudiced, so you’re going to use such arguments conveniently and ignore the exact same argument for similar situations “because reasons”. (Like actual competent implementation by a dev team through convenient complete ahistorical redefining of a historical role to suit their game’s gameplay). Or you mean that medics as a combat class don’t work in say Battlefield games, because “historically” they didn’t revive people in the midst of combat with the push of a button? Hell, AA light units are excellent AV in War Thunder… In many cases they are better at killing than their tank and tank destroyer peers… Right. Carry on with the arguments of historical convenience in a VIDEO GAME, which, as half the ships in this game, is this thing called FICTIONAL. If you’re going to argue against something in a game that doesn’t use historical accuracy as a basis for anything but aesthetics and some arbitrary stats (the accuracy of which it even ignores most the time for gameplay sake), maybe don’t use “historical accuracy”. Especially when the case for another fundamental class from a historical “kills” record point of view is not much better, if not worse. Oh yeah and that people use the opposite argument when they don’t want CVs despite them historically being pivotal in most fleet action in the Pacific and major fleet engagements since the drawing into the war of the USA and the later convoy operations (escort CVs). But hey, argument of inconvenience to you. I know… Subjective. You’ve seen one sub concept implementation and its hastily put together extrapolation that hardly altered the main concept by addressing barely any issues of importance. The rest of it is conjecture based on arbitrary (and refuted) historical use. There is a role for subs in this game, as there is for CVs, but WG will have to do much bigger fundamental changes to the concepts to integrate them for the health of the game. Please refer to some of my recent topics to see what I mean by that wrt to subs. Done the same redesign suggestion threads for CVs too. WG can and should do something. But people like you aren’t constructive and lack vision as well. You’re too angry to think calm and patiently about it, which is understandable. It is likely not your education to design stuff. But what I find worse, is that you make an incoherent, inconsistent argument that can easily be turned around on you and you don’t even see it because you’ve got nostalgia glasses on for what your ideal game would be. Badgering WG is not going to make them remove subs. Not proposing a solid alternative or any proper feedback is just going to have them plow forward in the same direction. They’ll implement more and more trash because you lot waste your energy not redesigning and guiding WG in a design direction that doesn’t see them scrap years of investment, but keep combatting them on a dead horse. You’ve lost the battle for whether or not they’ll be implemented well over a year ago. All this is going to do is make you drool in rage as they will keep failing to “listen” to you. Focus on revisioning subs (and CVs) in a way that is constructive and makes them want to listen to you. This cancel strategy evidently will not work, whether you think it should or not. I know you want to shoot the messenger, most people here do, hell some would TK, since they’re so childish and petty, or think using the Karma system or abusing other players is going to magically make it better for them.

So again. There's your problem. They don't move up. When I'm in a BB with subs present, I move up under cover of islands limiting the enemies that can see me and provide ASW when a sub is detected. But you create 0 vision yourself. You can flush out subs if you work together. If you however move away from them, you're working to their advantage and create opportunities for them to thrive. Sorry, but this is on the BBs. Importantly, increasing the amount of detection systems present will only make things worse as it pushes DDs and cruisers further away, reducing their viability to move up. You need to limit detection so DDs can be more aggressive and offensive and take the fight to subs without being completely molested by everyone that spots them. The focusing is also down to being spotted constantly. So how is your "solution" going to do anything than make matters worse? Subs need their situational awareness cut as well, particularly in periscope depth mode (limit situational awareness by range and angle of watching), so they have major blind spots that DDs can use to approach undetected till they're too close to dive in time. I'd also have some other things done that force subs down more often and give away their presence, but that's design stuff. People still need to be aware of what subs dislike in order to fight them. And the most important thing is pressuring them because they cannot relocate as fast as some people think they can. A cornered sub will die fast. And as I said there's a huge problem with being spotted too much, which is down to the scouting system. As someone else mentioned, the CV was clearly not doing its job of hunting down the subs (visually) so others can engage them with ASW, for which they need to have closed in. Being spotted and targeted by subs gives away their general position, so a CV should be able to spot it easily since it doesn't have to cover the entire area, just the area marked by those targeted and spotted by subs. Of course, if the CV is doing something else... There's a general lack of teamwork here and it's NOT just the fault of subs, but the unwillingness of other players to adapt to a new gameplay situation where they might have to learn to deal with additional threats (and importantly, take some risks dealing with it). And no, subs can't both harass BBs AND stay invisible to CVs scouting for them at the same time. They'd need to dive and stop being a problem as a scout and torp firing unit, or be close to the surface and do the above, but be vulnerable to being spotted. And 2.4km or thereabouts is sufficient for a CV to spot if it knows the approximate location from people pinging the map indicating ping directions and torp origins, at which point there ought to be ranged ASW capable units (and any HE firing units) in the area to take care of it. Depending on the sub it might die pretty fast if there's a concerted effort to take it down. But the OP describes a very common situation where nobody is hunting or pressuring the subs, at all, and then all those people complain about the subs. This is a much bigger teamwork-L2P issue than most of you dare acknowledge since it would lay part of the blame with you, rather than the sub scapegoat. That doesn't mean I'm saying subs are well designed, see my topics on how they ought to be redesigned. But I also recognise issues with players thinking they're great players doing stupid things that make it easier for subs and then SOLELY blaming subs.

Especially when BB competence is a huge issue… Those subs being given space is a bigger issue than pressuring as a team and spamming ASW with a couple of BBs on suspected locations. People in large part can’t handle subs because they don’t even try due to not knowing how. Their instinct for self preservation makes them do the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

So the units with ranged ASW decided to not support their team, the team split up way too far and wide, making the cruiser(s) sit in an overwhelmed position and making themselves an eventual easy one by one kill and then of course subs and CV got the blame for the poor choices BB players make that make life hard closer to the middle. Right. Sorry, but shouldn’t this topic be more about the BB design and it being both stimulated and too easy for them to stay at range through the scouting system, ruining your game?

There are quite a few captain skills like this that are just not worth it. How many people cert into AA or ASW? These are no just no replacement for the more expensive skills so having these at a higher level is just going to make them ignored in favour of range, anything related to damage output or weapon efficiency (whether guns or torps), stealth and repair/healing skills. Whereas with CV skills everything goes into keeping your aircraft alive at first, followed by firepower. (With RTS CVs, I invested heavily in AA including buffed AA range because of the likeliness you were mostly fought by the other CV). Skills aren’t proper alternatives if they are too infrequently used or you need certain skills just to be on par with the competition. Situational vs general applicability should be a key reason for cost. The gun turret traverse for instance is really cheap, but very worthwhile. Shouldn’t that be a 3pt or 4pt expensive skill, while AA or ASW that you use only against specific targets is a cheap option to get?

Fastmotion, you ignore arguments made, you revisit your old refuted points and generally make sure this conversation is not constructive. Hence you fit right into these here forums, well done.

It is not obsolete, but it's been used to point out simplified games (IMO erroneously). To me they fall in a category of simplified instanced games, which is why people use the term "Arcade like" to relate it to the old school definition of games that are highly instanced and accessible. In a way where I absolutely don't care about the semantics and arbitrary use of these definitions as long as people understand that game design choices are not defined by or selected due the class of games it is in, but by the gameplay and player interactions you desire in order to keep a high pace, instanced game fun and addictive with high replay value.

Okay... You clearly missed the period where these were games you played in an arcade, for people did not have computers or consoles at home Classic arcade games Arcade dance games Arcade racing games Flight "Sims" Gundam simulator Anything you can see up here is an arcade game. So no, the graphics are irrelevant, graphics are mostly period related, not class related. The medium on which you played is what is relevant here and the goal of the medium (make money on a game per game basis). An Arcade game is traditionally tied to a place and means of interaction by having a dedicated machine per game. Not tied to an arbitrary graphical achievement. Modern day literal arcade games also include Gundam simulators. They are meant to be easily accessible games of all kinds of variety that make money on the basis that you [TO CONTINUE READING THIS ARGUMENT, INSERT COIN].

As for the topic itself, the role of subs is mostly the same as that of other ships: damage / sink other ships, scout a bit and splash about. :P There's no very well defined roles for any class of ship. Per shipclass there's more a range of roles, combat strategies and opponents they can be better or worse at, the rock/paper/scissors is not 100% accurate either for any ship class. Not all DDs are good at stealth, though they're generally better at it than cruisers and BBs, hence they automatically are better scouts than the other classes, but that doesn't mean that simply being a DD makes you a good scout. A concealment difference of up to 2km with another DD is a huge problem for a scout role. Not all DDs are good brawlers, but some can even brawl against BBs and cruisers using either torps or even guns. Not all BBs are good at brawling, some are snipers. Some ships are good with HE, making them bad at quickly taking down heavily armoured targets. On the other hand, they might be very good at taking out light or nimble targets, where ships with a slow reload might have issues. For subs the roles they can do is quite wide from assassin to scout to harasser to sniper. Problem is this ALL often applies to every sub that can snipe (and why should it if it's main boon is being able to get close in on unsuspecting targets?) and the countermeasures are frequently not in agreement with the engagement distance. There's a mismatch here that needs to be adressed. What should the role be? I would say the proper role for subs in WoWs is short range assassin to medium range hit and run on somewhat stationary and close-by transiting targets, where the skill should be in ambush laying by remaining undetected till the last moment, matching timing for a strike with having to acquire situational awareness at high exposure risk to oneself. Engaging targets that have ASW or in an area containing many enemies should be a big risk. Becoming aware of the sub/torp threat should result in the ability to evade the attack relatively easier than a DD attack (slow and fewer torps, a means to cancel homing without using repair buttons - say turning off your engine) and initiate a counter attack without having to veer off-course too far and on short notice, especially towards enemies. This should suppress the sub and put it in a defensive evasion posture soon after the initial attack and take time before they can engage again, giving an opening in their defensiveless beyond stealth to the enemy to engage and deploy countermeasures. IMO torps should be slow and deal heavy damage per torp. Torps fired from periscope depth should be deepwater torps and thus DDs should have a huge edge in one on one combat.

Except of course that though transport and troop ships were the main priority in order to inflict as much logistical pain as possible, they also attacked surface warships with a preference for large targets of opportunity and unsuspecting ships, where chances of succes are higher. Quite a few cruisers during WWI and WWII were sunk for instance. So although not their main priority, it was done when given the opportunity. CVs were very looked after by subs as well, doesn’t mean it was easy to pull off and that is where WG messed up, the risk-reward and cat and mouse balance is significantly off. Anyway: Here is a list of confirmed submarine on warship sinkings: Ashigara (heavy cruiser) USS Indianapolis (heavy cruiser) Léon Gambatta (armoured cruiser) USA Juneau (AA cruiser) SMS Prinz Adelbert (armoured cruiser) HMS Hampshire (armoured cruiser) HMS Cressy (armoured cruiser) HMS Aboukir (armoured cruiser) Pallada (protected cruiser) Trento (heavy cruiser) Armando Diaz (light cruiser) HMS Galatea (light cruiser) HMS Dunedin (light cruiser) HMS Penelope (light cruiser) Tama (light cruiser) Giovanni delle Bande Nere (light cruiser) Amiral Charner (heavy cruiser) Atago (heavy cruiser) Nagara (light cruiser) Maya (heavy cruiser) Natori (light cruiser) ARA General Belgrano (light cruiser) INS Kuhkri (frigate) Urakaze (DD) Yamakaze (DD) HMS Fidelity (Q-ship - submarine hunting decoy ship) Akitso Maru (CV) Taiho (CV) Shinano (CV) Shokaku (CV) Chuyo (CV) Unryu (CV) Shinyo (CV) Tayio (CV) USS Wasp (CV) USS Liscombe Bay (escort CV) HMS Courageous (escort CV) HMS Avenger (escort CV) Kongo (BB) HMS Barham (BB) HMS Royal Oak (BB) HMS Formidable (pre-dreadnaught BB) Suffren (pre-dreadnaught BB) And of course some other warships were damaged by (mini-)subs (in port) during convoy duty or otherwise, or though damaged wern’t sunk or finished off while limping away for repairs like some of the CVs were.

A realistic game is a game that tries to approach reality as close as possible in terms of controls, vision and results of actions. Like if a torpedo hits you'd get a huge hole causing flooding that cannot be patched by pressing "R". That would mean you'd be talking about a simulator. WoWs is none of that. It has weird physics for ships, lay-outs are simplified, there's no realistic anything in WoWs aside from ship appearance and even that is questionable given the paper ships and quick and dirty solutions now and then to put another ship in game quickly. Arcade games are defined as games you play at... an arcade. You know. Space invaders. Mario Bros. (the original). Mario vs Donkey Kong. Pong. Jetpack. Asteroids. Simple games where you insert a coin to continue. Typically what you got online is that the use of "arcade" has shifted more towards quick and relatively simple games with a high degree of accessibity to casual players regardless of skills, attentionspan or intelligence, where therefore often the usability and design norms are not set by the top line competitive players, but by the lowest common denominator. Like the BB only noob. Hence it used to be a very derogatory term for "dumbed down games", until "casual game" gamers took it on as "this is how you design this sort of thing", because it suits them. And to a degree they're right. To a degree they're not, since you can design these same games with a bit more complexity and still be accessible. Mechanics in WoWs and WoT are simplified, win conditions are arbitrary, artificial and from a military perspective completely bonkers at times. You get in game bonuses, silly camos, arbitrary mechanics like healing, repairing modules, fire and floods with a single button press, randomly launched and picked up aircraft at full speed, unlimited ammunition quantities, no storms, visual targeting system is completely unrealistic, fleet composition is completely unrealistic in so many ways it's not even funny, you can ram islands at full speed without being damaged, unlimited fuel, the arbitrary assigning or denying of gimmicks like smokescreens and radar (which goes through mountains), hydro (which has limited range and goes through islands), scaling of distances and sizes of ships, you see the ship from third person, not a captain point of view, you control all turrets at once, while also steering and doing other stuff, you don't have to make any targeting calculations.and I could go on and on forever. There's nothing realistic about WoWs when you examine it closely. That includes the ship models, for there are no crews. Because they're not. You can have realistic arcade games. Think of race or flight simulators you can play... at an arcade. That's a complete subjective definition of realistic where you are being extremely selective in what is allowed to count towards realistic and what isn't. You'll find few people will agree with you as you cherry pick the handful of things that pass the realistic standard and completely ignore the hundreds of things that don't. *facepalm* Honestly? You should realise you're just being arguementative here, because you have a hard time dealing with critique and conceding you're not always right. You're constantly moving the goal posts on what is okay within the concept of "realism" in order to simply not admit you've lost an online discussion. :/ People hate conceding points to anyone for their ego is fragile. But if you're honest you evaluate your position and weigh the arguments brought fourth. In the end, it doesn't matter whether WoWs is realistic or not, the question is whether a change would enhance gameplay or be detrimental to it, but most importantly if from the positions of all players involved on either side of a change is a fair one. CVs and subs are not considered "fair" by some people, in large part, because of their implementation and the countermeasures not matching up. My advice to you: move on from this discussion.

When do you launch it? Because there's an activation / target acquisition time after launch. You should have them airborne some time prior to the enemy aircraft entering their area and they'll only engage after they circle in close and detect them within a certain distance from themselves. The first engagement by the CV therefore usualy can be launched. Often times CVs pull their aircraft or reduce their squadron size before the fighters have anything to engage. If you put them up early enough, they'll be a deterent at best. The double patrol does help ensure the fighters engage more timely, but then, which CV would attack a double patrol area instead of waiting for it to cool down or taking on another target instead? IMO fighter patrol controls ought to be changed to be less passive and more actively positioned (more like the old air patrols CVs launched during the RTS period). I might actually use them for something other than scouting.

Did you per chance face a bunch of German ships with long range secondaries? 'Cause those can be quite painful to DD due to sheer volume of fire (same goes for facing particular ships with high rate of fire, chances of module deletion increase in a high volume of fire area). especially if your captain skills aren't active yet.

Ah, completionism. The best tool for marketeers. Damn you toy designers and your infinite repaints.

Did you have any latency issues? Package loss? Ping?

Ah that's unfortunate. :( It's always a shame to see good stat sites go down. Ah well...

Map sizes are 24kmx24km, 36kmx36km, 42kmx42km and 48kmx48km. For many ships, the view range is 12 to over 20km. Thus being in the middle of a map means you can see pretty much everything. As is now, this is how spotting works:

@ColonelPete shall we just agree to disagree? Because we're investing way too much time in this discussion and it's not going anywhere constructive from either our perspectives from the looks of it. I've tried finding maplesyrup stats for beta and beyond, but it appears I can only find stats for 2021 and the site seems closed, so sadly can't actually use the same kind of numbers to prove the point. If you know somewhere else, great, but seems it'll be hard to find old stats like that.

Not without a scout closer by to act as liaison IMO. It‘s of course a good long range shot, but that cruiser should have it hard enough facing one BB and a CV at once. Preventing a 30km shot shouldn’t be a too regular occurrence, but it would be a possible deliberate strategy to go after scouts near mid and thereby cut one flank from the other to make it easier to overcome odds with good play. Ghere is also very little situational awareness that can help you against 30km shots so it shouldn’t be that regular an occurrence anyway. Scouting should IMO be a little bit more deliberate team effort in terms of deliberate positioning to have someone else line up a short, rather than the arbitrary consequence of someone somewhere accidentally having line of sight and the game always handing that sort of info out to everyone and their pet rat. Scouting is very easy now and some can do it without much consequence. Think of CVs flying an aircraft behind enemy lines for minutes to permaspot. There should be more effort in it, because being seen is being fired at.

Yes and in general other BB players benefitted as well. The classes that gave up some WR were DDs and cruisers, so if you played more BBs, you’d benefit more. Somehow you don’t seem to realize that if you have a skewed usage, you benefit/lose out more or less from buffs and nerfs. Yes everyone benefits, when playing BBs, but not everyone benefits if they don’t play BBs all the time. Because if a ship class other than the one you use gets buffed, your current class loses power. So yes, BB only players tend to be relatively bad players and stood to gain most. I personally played all ships equally aside from CVs, so my BBs benefitted but my (still 60ish%) US DDs in particular suffered from the nerfs and having to change tactics and engage from further away. They were great up till the smoke nerf to risk detection and just steam up like a Paolo Emilio and torp the crap out of just about anything from 4km away and run away again. Knowing most BB players used not to be able to turn in time if they didn’t do so immediately. Later on they could dodge most 4km launched torps much better even if late to steer and you generally had to launch from further away after the smoke nerf, increasing your torp spread and chances of being spotted. Now, CVs wern’t really affected by BB changes much (easier to dodge some torps at most due to the better turning). As they could still double torp from two sides. Wrt to draws, draws were often thrown matches by bad players, whereas many better players who already played by objectives gained little from the draw removal, because they actually forced (“won”) draws out of losses by playing for objectives and obstructing bad players. I lost 2% draws in exchange for some wins and losses, but it barely impacted my WR in comparison. But, many draws were matches that would have been losses in the current point system. If you couldn't win, you would go for a draw for better exp rates, so you’d bait the opposition away from the objectives or did just enough cap resets as the time ran out with you still alive. CVs were also very prone to draws iirc. due to people changing to the far side of the map as time ran out. If these bad players didn’t need to cap to win on points rather than capping and protecting circles, they’d perform better. Still liabilities for their team however, just have to actually kill ‘m now instead of just manipulating their ability or willingness to cap. As long as you don’t compare to what came before, there is no comparison made. So you cannot draw any conclusions based on just the aftermath by your lack of imagining a wider spread. And yeah, there is a bell curve distribution of good and bad players in both cases, of course there is! And yes, the curve was different then. The middle group shifted a little bit up (the majority were more 46-49ers then, those should be 48-50, 51% now presumably. Some of the better players went up too as their tools were buffed. Uh huh. You should probably read back. Around release wrt beta. The BB buffs started iirc a week or so after beta concluded. DDs were hit with the nerfbat, BBs got buffed on every front from turn rate to I think (correct me if wrong) HE resistance, CVs… well, they did all kinds of nonsense with those. Cruisers mostly were ignored or indirectly nerfed, sometimes slightly buffed (recall the Omaha getting one for “being too weak”, despite me getting 52 or 59K average damage on it largely with torps and HE from range). Often times for AA tweaks that did little to nothing up till the AA panic button. BBs by far got the best deal out of that period and those changes were mostly made for the lower end of the spectrum.

I've also had it where two hulls were nearly parallel and it seemed as if there was some friction from the hulls touching or getting stuck behind a little art piece, say a protrusion on decklevel, causing one of the ships being latched onto and pulled by hte heavier one in some direction. Usualy both turning could dislodge that. Sometimes it meant for one of us to outspeed the other to unhook. It depends. :/ The collission model could also have gotten confused if you clipped through the art of the other ship somehow. Tried being pushed into an island and getting yourself stuck/rotated there enough to break free of the clipping?

Yeah. I was talking about the viewranges of CL/BBs really, I should have made that clearer. Smaller ships would get relatively higher % of radio range compared to view range in order to be effective spotters, with the exception of subs. :)

The middle area should likely be within radio range of spotters from both sides. a little 3/5s of the map is probably where the cut-off line would start. So if you're middle, but not all the way back, you should still be able to do this. You can still crossfire the guy, just not from the other end of the map. You're still going to be able to use your range, but yes, not all the time if the enemy is being spotted from the opposite side from where you are (say a DD is border flanking and you're on the far side of the middle area, that would probably deny you visual confirmation unless the ship is firing in your line of sight or someone else is also spotting who is closer to you). So yes, you'd have a couple fewer shots, but when a BB fires, they got plenty of range to get spotted most the time by you. If they're behind an island you'll probably won't have a shot anyway, but you can still try to guesstimate where he'll appear using map aim. And that's basically what this does. As you say, this is going to be highly dependent on radio ranges. But I'm thinking in the order of 20-25km radio range for DD-CA/CL-BB at the highest tier, where maps are 42kmx42km. So a BB, cruiser or DD on the border would still be able to spot for ship that's located at ~60% towards the other end of the map. A CV or sub would not. I'd have CV radio be similar, but aircraft radio be more like 10-18km depending on tier - add aircraft spotting distance and you get pretty far, if they attack from the opposite end at your max viewing range they won't spot well, reducing the risk to your Slava from other threats while maneouvring to evade aircraft. T2-3 is a lot of fun. I've had it where I was alone with one other left and using the stealth and radio system and use divide and conquer tactics. We hid in a set of bushes to let the enemy pass by at 400m, then signalled to attack from their rear (taking out the meds first from cover and then rush in on the TDs who still had to turn 180° to fire at us) and circle spammed them in a Tetrarch and a M3 light, we beat the remaining 9 (!) enemies together with next to no damage taken despite brawling thanks to that initial surprise rush and using the subsequent disappearance to catch 2 more coming from the mountain pass and finally their artillery unit who was outspotted, outflanked and overrun by us. This would not have been possible at higher tiers on that map due to the sniping from the other end of the lake you'd have gotten. For me the snorefest matches started at T8-9, so I usualy went with scouts into those or used TDs and mediums to play scout more so than be the main damage dealer. Unfortunately WoT suffered a lot from alpha damage power creep and some units were just not that feasible anymore. But yes, T2-7 in WoWs (especially in beta) felt similar to those lower tiers at WoT at first, you could use the lack of information to pull off crazy offensive strikes. The information overkill introduced later at higher tiers IMO means too many can fire at you at the same time and too often people know your position so you're forced to play conservative. In WoT people would be complaining about your Slava (artillery) firing all over the map so they don't dare to move. You kinda see that cowering and sidescraping islands in WoWs as well, especially with the introduction of radar cruisers and people getting near permaspotted by aircraft, DDs and subs working together on top of the cruisers and BBs. I want such dynamic play back and that kinda requires maps like the old islands of ice map: That map often was a bit too big for the speeds the ships have to reach objectives in time, but has been dumbed down so badly by removing so many islands and making it more symmetrical. If anything, it should have gotten more islands in the middle. I took my Amagi into such mid sections with a lot of effectiveness. Completely surprised a secondary build Yamato once by catching its broadside in D4 by circling the islands without getting noticed. And secondary Yamato had the potential of doing 200-300K back then. Your Slava should do well there, appearing between islands to give a broadside, then hiding behind the next island again. Given the map size it'd likely to be one of the best ships on here. However, as the amount of spotters would reduce over time, your influence at range would potentially be reduced over time a little, which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing as it would offset numerical differences that will occur at that time a bit in favour of the brawlers.

You don’t seem to understand that if you remove draws and decrease liability (while still maintaining high liability), you make them seem less bad statistically, while the experience for players playing with them doesn’t change much as they see bad play that ignores objectives, lack initiative, angle poorly, sail in straight lines and generally play bad and get their team a liability. So no, people do not see this artificial change as anything but hiding bad play. You will not find a poll telling you they got better, even if they deal a little bit more damage on average due to staying alive a bit longer. The same reasons they died before will get these players killed, just a little bit later, which is time spend by good players not killing other players, but in the end they will. Cognitive dissonance on your part here. Except that it was… The spread got narrower on the bottom end in particular. The Bell shape doesn’t go away, but the spread got narrower. And from the sound of it, well before you started playing as you never saw it happen, so sure, stay in denial. Oh wow… You’re… a special kind of ignorant. YOU don’t understand it has been changed, claimed it can ONLY be done by MM manipulation (which hasn’t been done beyond ship class) and then project… While at the same time admitting draw removal would have affected WR… Which it did. And while claiming that buffs to an entire class of ships a whole group of people relied on would not have affected their performance at all. Kinda special. I find it pretty funny that you would claim that a ship or class of ships being buffed won’t start performing better on average over the entire field, automatically dragging down performance and winrates of other classes a little bit. It doesn’t have to be much and it doesn’t forego the option of still having really, really bad players. When did you start playing again? July 2015? You mean… AFTER the changes had been implemented? Hmm. You mean you never noticed yourself how it used to be in beta? Hmmmmm. No, you never talked about 2015. You talked about two results of long past 2015, so post-2015 changes and then claimed nothing ever changed, while never looking at the release period of the game when the change occured. You can only compare a before and after. Not an way after and a way after (which will have similar results) and say “see, nothing changed from before!” And you didn’t even recognize that you were comparing two results that should provide similar data since the basic game design and balancing was the same during that period. Which makes you look pretty dumb. You apparently have access to a site with data, why don’t you go and fetch that data? If it’s not there, you will have to make due with the memory of players who did play in that period. I don’t think you even know what caused draws to occur, because that was behaviour under a specific set of rules that ignored objectives. Objectives that WG changed to be more inline with behaviour like chasing after the last enemy ship(s) instead of capping was rewarded more with the new point system.

Bit of an oversimplification, it’s more the creation of pockets of information to introduce more “fog of war”. Thereby increasing team reliance for snipers, aiding closer range dynamic gameplay, stealth maneouvres and tone down the impact of submarine and CV scouting, enhancing the DD role by giving it superior radio range. This also makes submarines more of a listener than a provider of intel, creating a greater sense of isolation for them, making them more vulnerable too. To be frank, it already is. Problem is, once that potato dies, all its enemies know not just where you are, but know to lead you as a target as well. That depends on how large the radio circles are. Rather than touching I prefer enveloping a ship into the circle since it is easier to communicate the system. Most radio systems would be similar in range to just beyond their visibility. You would not lose that much info. Tbh, when we started playing WoWs, it was the exact opposite. WoWs had you keep moving and making offensive moves, whereas WoT stimulates digging hull down into defensive positions and showing nothing but your turret (preferably not your cupola). Today both games feel very different from when they were launched. Not in the least because the steady increase in excessive milking, of course. There are some basic differences. I never liked the touching radio spheres setup. It doesn’t make sense and creates a lot extra superfluous gaps. The basic premise of fog of war and team dependency it uhowever I do like.