Figment

Basically anything with over 127mm secondaries in terms of range against big targets, which would include the Yamato and Siegfried.

The main issue I have with secondaries is that it's so ship dependend on whether you can spec into it or not. Every way you can spec a ship should be functional, otherwise why provide it as an option? (Other than the cynical reasons of forcing players to buy a respec...). A Yamato with secondary build for instance should be a viable choice to take into battle (it obviously is not, at least not since beta). It was made to be a bit worse than the German (would be their gimmick) and French and some US BB lines, but it's gotten even worse with the introduction of the second Gerry BB line. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a strong secondary BB line, it's the discrepency between the lines, to the point where one build is actually useful to win you battles, while the other build loses you battles and usualy can't even be used because you'll have long burned out before even getting your secondaries into range. Schlieffen is ridiculous at range. Even at its max secondary range a DD can get killed while weaving with mostly secondary damage as happened in my Marceau and Gearing a few times while dueling with a DD 11km away from a Schlieffen, who didn't even have direct line of sight (its secondaries went over hills its main guns couldn't even arc over) and caught me by surprise. But I don't see why Schlieffen should be this good, when Bismarck, Tirpitz, Odin and some other ships were nerfed so hard back then and those don't even have good torpedo range, if any. So let's look at Schlieffen vs Yamato. IMO given Yamato's lack of torpedoes on top of this, secondaries should favour Yamato's higher caliber. Instead, the Yamato lacks range and fire rate to compete even close, despite the higher potential damage per HE shell. By the time the Yamato starts firing them, the Schlieffen will have had a huge headstart with high fire chance and launched torpedoes. What I would like to see is a new distinction in secondary classification specifications. Create a distinction between CQC secondary ships (lot of lower cal secondaries) and longer range anti-BB/Battlecruiser battleships (more higher cal secondaries). I would propose that accuracy would depend on the size of the ship and secondary armament size, but range would be determined as such: Cal. <105mm has a max base range of ~6-7km, and a max range of 11.5km or so to activate on light ships. Cal. >=105 to =<127mm has a max base range of 7-9km, but only activate on light ships within [their base range +50% of their buffed range]. Cal. >127mm has a max base range of 9-12km, but only activate on light ships within their base range. Hence it wouldn't change much for combatting DDs compared to now in terms of engagement range against light ships, but ships with heavier cal secondaries would become much better at tackling heavier targets with their secondaries from range and it would become viable to spec into secondaries for even slower BBs like the Yamato and Montana. They'd just not be as useful buffs for CQC against lighter targets, where for instance the Schlieffen would shine.

But how will you get them to divert their course by 15 degrees if it's not a US CV you're dealing with?

@Aethervoxx I'm just opening this thread for the first time in a few years and I see you whining about WG cheats aimed at making you lose. Do you also noticed that when you specifically play boardgames against your personal friends, whether those games have been designed to make you specifically lose as well, just so your friends get better stats. Like, when you need to throw dice and they keep throwing higher numbers than you with the exact same dice, meaning the dice has been weighted for you but not for them? Asking for a friend.

Sure. Probably why it's usualy in the top three. ;) No, the low damage is because I close in fast at the start of the match, mainly hunt DDs with it and win the DD battle, giving my team an early DD advantage. Who wins the DD duels, tends to win the battle. I'm not going to use it to farm damage on BBs or cruisers (aside from radar cruisers and other Dutch ships) too much, tends to take too long. Sure, you get the occassional Richelieu that burns out with three fires while backing up and getting caught in air spam or so, but winning the DD duels is so much more important than me farming the whole match. It gets you lots of exp and a likely win. There have been bad matches, particularly during the grind to upgrade and figuring the ship out (getting triple citted early on for instance resulting in next to no damage dealt in some matches), but overall I'm scoring very well in it - about 67K is normal, but 40K in DD damage is pretty good for the match win. What it shows is that you think of its use like any other ship, I use it differently. You're prejudiced because you look at damage stats without understanding them. Pretty noobish and narrowminded for someone with your stats.

Just be sure not to hit ON the turrets when aiming for the super structure, unless those are facing sideways at you. I tend to aim just above deck height with AP, next to the turrets, or just over the turrets, depending on the ship. I don't dare aim for the bows, tbh due to ricochet chance, even with high overmatch ships like Yamato. Usualy does a guaranteed 5-8K damage with AP. Then switch to HE for the final 4-8K.

Fixed.

Haarlem is fine, but it requires a special type of gameplay. And not one that demands you surviving the battle or killing most ships. It's not a ship that can play as a deterent very well, but it can work excellent as bait and anti-camp in an advanced position shortly behind your DDs, provided there's islands to use and you're not being spotted by DDs. Killing DDs and using your hydro to aid your DDs is therefore important. Even more important is having spotters, so keep your DDs alive and see if you can use their fog. Without islands, it's going to be a run and hit unit (not hit and run, because turning this thing in the open is a problem, you have to be turned and ready to run before you start hitting). It's pretty good at kiting and setting stuff on fire, but can't take a lot of direct AP hits. So either what you want to do is set a target on fire with bombs and then when the fire is stemmed with repair, set new fires by launching your next air raid or firing yourself. The bow can take a bit of a hit, so if you do engage head on, keep it head on. Only turn to fire with your rear guns if you're not going to be facing broadsides. The AP is somewhat poor against BBs at larger ranges, but okay against cruisers and with the shorter reload than BBs, usable in CQC against BBs. Would not go for citadels against BBs though, nose or upper structure. All in all, it's meant to try to burn the enemy down and weaken them, where your allies should finish them off. Beyond that, the ship is excellent at AA escorting duty. I often aid DDs and if there's few islands, BBs or cruisers with their AA. Decimates air patrols very quickly and usualy only TX CVs dare send air near you at all after the first lesson you gave them.

I'm wondering how they calculated the damages and if they have to provide evidence of the reason players left the game to be cheats and then his cheats specifically. That'd be a pretty tall mountain of evidence to provide.

This is exactly the type of comment that's a sign of a problematic culture. You say they are the abusers in jest I'm sure, but such jokes enforce the idea that a certain group of players is fair game within this community to target with various forms of actual abuse. Simply for using a tool handed to them by the game that the abuser doesn't like (to be used against him/her). It's a very petty form of bullying aimed at innocent people. Such abuse should be much harsher treated by GMs and mods tbh. So yeah, I'm really not okay with that method of stigmatisation of fellow players. CV player's aren't abusers. They're simply users. Like most of you have a 10+km radar ship I probably don't like while playing Gearing or Benson. But I'm not going to be so dumb to attack the players using the tools at their disposal.

Speaks for itself...

Let's make this really simple for you if you go TLDR on the previous post: Regardless of size and goals, regardless of who you agree with, is there a pro-CV camp and an anti-CV camp? Yes or no? Do CV players get at the least ridiculed by players from the anti-CV camp, often even abused and harassed in game (if only by the karma system) and on forums? Yes or no? If yes, I'm right and you're wrong. Period. End of debate, because we both know the answer is yes to both these questions and you're trying to argue semantics on the definition of partisanship because you have nothing else left.

Strawman much? Have you checked out the CV karma thread on page 1 of the forums for an example of how people abuse others and relish in the fact because they personally dislike a certain class? I'm sure you have. It's really toxic. You're funny. Evidence please that I never actually debate on merits. Or that I'm even in favour of this sub implementation. Please go on and humiliate yourself some more, because I can easily point at posts where I'm at the least mildly critical to at most asking for a complete overhaul of the class and design elements. I don't think the class, as a conceptual class of its own, needs removed per se however, same with CV's as I think they have a place. I'm not happy with their implementation, but at least I'm not constantly frothing at the mouth at other people. Btw, I do not ever simply dismiss someone. I instead usualy go out of my way in TLDR breakdowns of their argumentation. However, I will point out false equivalences and vicious misplaced attacks like you tend to make, a lot. As evidenced in this thread. In half your postings you go after me with strawmen arguments to attack, rather than adress my actual points. You think you perceive hypocrisy, but fail to realise I'm not a hypocrite, I just expose your debating strategy and then declare it invalid and pretty abusive. But hey. Strawmanning, it's your thing. It seems to be your go to method of posting. You're a worthless debater IMO as you don't check your facts before you make claims and accusations. I'm part of the playerbase too. Yet I want CVs in. In a different way than they are implemented now, sure, but I don't mind them that much as is (with some specific unit exceptions) and generally are positive about their presence in game. As such, I'm not part of your political faction with an agenda to erase CV's altogether at all. In fact, you and others clearly have had it out for me personally over CV's, not just my stance or arguments, but me personally. You do not want me and my opinion and preferences to exist and you've made that pretty clear in the past. But once again a fine example of you trying to monopolise the debate. Thanks for once again being so helpful in providing evidence to my claims. I beg you to continue digging your own holes, it looks like a lot of fun. Yes to all those questions. You describe a CAMPAIGN TO ATTAIN A CERTAIN IMPLEMENTATION OF AN IDEALISED STATE OF THE GAME OR GAME DESIGN/POLICY that not everyone agrees with. Like myself. So yes, I'm not partisan to your cause and yes all of that is highly partisan. It's subjective perception of a potential and situational problem actually, where not everyone even agrees it's a problem or a problem to the extend that these people do. Certainly concensus on what to do with the class is hard to find too. And those calling for the removal simply don't even bother to try to find concensus. I'm very dismissive of them, yes, because they do not take the debate serious, they're only interested in their own goals and agenda and are more than willing to screw over everyone who doesn't agree with removal need or enjoys the class. And those people exist, whether you like it or not. You're trying to make an ad populum and expert claim argument here, but that doesn't make it less partisan. Whether they're top clans or not is actually not always relevant. In fact, speaking in more general terms than WoWs, in some such cases top clans in games might be top because of a reliance on certain OP units, exploits or features. Depending on how fair they are they might even argue against anything that threatens their dominance or in favour of things that strengthen it. Like if their position would be strengthened even more by the removal of something that hinders their prefered playstyle and strategies or forces them to bring in certain counters or make certain moves that they'd rather not bring to focus on something else they prefer or identified as a situation where they have a much higher chance of winning if they can do that unhindered and more reliably. Whether or not they identified a problem, the moment they took a stance either way they took a partisan position. They created a goal and campaigned towards it. Whether they're in the right or not is not relevant to whether they played politics like renaming their clan names to make political statements. KillCV and BanCV etc. are actually extremist positions that increased the toxicity towards CV players by suggesting it is fine to hate the unit and dehumanizing the player behind it. I found it a rather childish way to make their point. Technically, yes. That's having a particular position and view on a game design and wanting something else. So yes, those would be in the anti-CV camp. But do you have any arguments to how I'm wrong on partisanship and toxicity, rather than providing more evidence that I'm right? Have you even realised how easy it was to get you to defend your partisanship and display your fanatism and disdain with regards to CV's by merely mentioning the class?

Only camos and flags.

The upside in a grind game is obvious: less time investment to reach higher ranks. Anti-cheat software is fallible, especially when it isn't sure what to look for in new cheats. Players who cheat do not necessarily have a high WR, more likely they have a low WR as their bots likely do not make logical team cooperative choices. They'd be more likely to have an unreasonable amount of matches with low to medium exp gain in a short period of time to optimize exp gains per day.

Thing is, I do have the moral high ground, since I do not stereotype with strawmen as there's ample evidence in every thread on CVs, subs and other things that the things I mention, the abuse I mention, happen and the reasons are similar selfish arguments of what the "perfect/ideal game" for the player creating abuse looks like. Meanwhile those who are perceived to stand in the way of achieving this, or worse, get the game further from that ideal are targeted. I only then qualify this as inferior morally, because... it involves abuse and unjustified resentments aimed at others. You do not even understand the difference between high and low ground, I get to declare your position as inferior, because you take the inferior route of bullying and strawmanning and other debating fallacies. You sir, fail. :/ And your interpretation of partisanship is so incredibly narrowminded as you do not understand that this is about politics. Game (and comic and whatever fanbase) forum politics is about fractions of players wanting specific things that they like, while rejecting and trying to prevent things they do not like. Such as in this case particular game policies implemented. There is a personal "political" agenda involved and people try to get allies, create parties and opposition to others and subsequently try to create a dominant, vocal group to claim the majority opinion and force their preferred game design or policies to be implemented. Partisanship can be a group that dislikes CVs (with or without a passion), with fringe groups going on abusive rants, while the reasonable people stay constructive. Note however that these reasonable people often do not interfere with the abusers on the "same side of the argument" - aka partisanship - as on the one hand it risks them becoming targets of the abusers themselves, while they can use the abusers as it detracts from their opposition who get either bogged down in heated arguments and semantics that muddles the debate, tired out, or otherwise bullied out of the conversation or into silence or are undermined by creating a strawman persona that's much easier to dismiss and as such their goal to dominate the debate is achieved. This is pretty standard forum debate and politics... But you have never participated and would never participate in such things, right, Soda?

Hey look, a hyperbolic strawman argument after missing the point entirely (a point which is then of course not adressed at all or even tangently adressed)! Kudo's to you good sir, for failing in every debating way possible. The statement I made is that people are prone to fall into partisanship due to a particular like or dislike. The subsequent dehumanization through black and white strawmanning and stereotyping of their perceived opposition with no room for alternative viewpoints or preferences as whoever is not with them is against them, or worse, evil. This is where the adjectives and stereotyping goes a little like "only a fat guy in a basement without a girlfriend", "skilless noobs", "can only win with CVs", "aircancer players" "no skills involved" stereotypical and stigmatising abuse. Etc. Etc. It usualy features the monopolisation of the debate's moral high ground or intellectual side for oneself, without any room for nuance, again to the point of ridicule, persecution and abuse of those that do not share their views or principles (like those who play CV nevertheless, even enjoy playing said class, where they themselves would not and subsequently hurl insults or reports at these players due to their own hatred off and/or incompetence to deal with a class and trying to prescribe a way to play the game to others where they have no such rights or authority to do so). But I'm glad you've proven me wrong by strawmanning me with hyperboles that completely missed the point. I never said anything about your intellect though, but you've clearly shown your mental discipline didn't by not going into a frantic over-the-top counter-offensive of a perceived slight. So thanks for the demonstration? ;) This guy gets it. It's fine to not like a class or unit (balance), but to have a go at the players who use them or speak for other players in an attempt to monopolize the argument. Like saying "nobody plays because of (my pet-peeve) A or B", while ignoring there might be reasons C, D, E, F and G for other people. Often while making derogatory remarks or negative statements and innuendo about others, the people who use such classes or units. That's simply the wrong way to go about it and leads to toxicity, often deliberately, as the toxicity is used as a tool to pressurize a third party (WarGaming) or express one's own frustrations by bullying others. This is simply petty behaviour that should not be tolerated. Discuss the units and the changes you want, even the removal, as much as you wish. But do not attack those who do play or like them. Do not create prejudices about them. Do not put words in their mouth. Just because you hate, doesn't mean you're entitled to corrupt the debate and act toxic towards other people in the community. This is done to CV players, it's done to sub players, Slava and Thunderer players, it's done to a lot of players quite frankly.

It's always funny to see anti-class outrage bandwagons form. Then the stigmatising and prejudiced remarks about the users follow (particularly starting to claim how these people think and what they want and how they go about it) as stereotypes of players to hate are created. And people wonder why people are so easily manipulated in voting for fringe politics and fall for conspiracy theories when they themselves don't have the mental discipline to nuance, tolerate, accept or be fair. Oh well. People will always need scapegoats for their own failures, insecurities and incompetences I guess. There is one class that's a problem in this game, and it's got 10x as many players as other classes in the MM, has whined about and gotten buffs constantly despite already having been the strongest class since beta. But that's too much of an elephant in the room.

Let it be known that I would like to join the lottery. :o

There are ample reasons subs aren't played that much and not even due to gameplay. IMO the most important thing is that they're mission earned, which has a number of annoying consequences for those who do wish to play them: - Not always available - They do not contribute to all mission types as much as other ship classes - They're not available in each mode - Often unclear when they'll be available to you again. I've unlocked them quite often without even becoming aware that I did and completely ignoring their existence. - When they are, you have to do a lot of micromanagement: reinstall modules set captain throw away old captains set flags set camo That's more than enough reason to not bother with reconfiguring them over and over for me at least. I might pick one to try during the period and train a captain, but barely play them due to the hassle and requiring other ships for missions. You'll probably see more people pick them up once they're added, simply because it's less of a hassle. But hey, let's all pretend it's just because nobody likes to play them, because one dimensional prejudiced black and white thinking is what WoWs players love. ;)

Leone is challenging, but okay. Torps are only two per volley, but they're pretty effective. Guns hit hard, the main challenge is maneuvring.

Double post. Subs are quite playable, but you need to go for specific targets, scout a lot and know when to ping last second such that they don't get much time to communicate a reference direction. You are not allowed to hit CVs though.

Secondaries work actually, note the Chevny kill and stats (I fired it once and hit once). Came to the surface just to kill the DD with secondaries. :)

Double double post.

Up till recently I've ran my Marceau with the following skills: Preventive Maintenance (1pt) Last Stand (2pt) Indestructible (3pt) Main gun and air defense specialist (3Pt) Concealment Expert (4pt) I've just got its captain 14pts, so I can opt for a second 4th tier skill if I drop a 3rd tier skill, or I could go for Dazzle (questionable skill IMO, but it might give some time to close in while taking a little bit less damage). Or I could simply use the extra point for greater flooding chance, which, tbh, I think would be wasted since most damage with these torps comes from the alpha strike, if it strikes at all (ofc. if you had the target on fire recently or after, that'd be an extra way to make them spend repairs or take damage). I don't think any of the other 1 pt skills are very relevant. At 6.1s turret rotation speed it'd be a waste to increase that, while I'm hardly ever on AA timer, why go with a swifter reload to AP at this RoF and finally, why would I want to know what I already know, namely that I'm being shot at? So the main question is, can I do without the 3.500hp buff and make up for it with shots missed due to Dazzle, or firing from safety?