Figment

Yeah, if it hardly ever happens (hint: average damage on my drops is about 500, by spreading the amount of damage dealt by all two strikes that actually hit a little over the 20 strikes attempted). Especially when torp damage of 16-70K+ in one strike is considered normal and can occur more reliably and frequently due to being more encompassing in the terrain covered (meaning more stray torps may hit random targets, the terrain covered is larger and a maneouvre may not as easily cause a 100% missed strike). The problem here is selective perception. An outlier single strike event is an anecdote and does not reflect its realistic potential. If the thing is so damn hard to aim, which it is, then it better hit hard when it does hit, otherwise it is useless. If it is weak, then it should be really easy to aim, which it isn't because of the extreme leading time with no lead indicators like you have with torps, mind.

I get decent average damage with it: 41K, so far reliably between 35-60K, just the Air Strike does nothing for me at all as your leading is entirely skill based on a 15s drop, while people are in brawling mode, so steer like crazy - a torp can compensate for that with lead and continuing on if the target deviated from its course and hit it anyway, Air Strike requires accurate prediction aim, especially if you have only one drop at a time and since it always aims in a straight line from you so isn’t optimally angled. I still only hit with it once in those 6 battles and sadly though I always got a third position, I havn’t been able to carry as I usually can as there is little you can do against BBs except burn them down, no alpha damage like a torp strike to save your [edited]and getting that close to BBs to make air strikes work is very dangerous to your ship. it needs islands or ships fogging for it to even function, it’ll be toast on the Ocean map. The ships work fine against cruisers, CVs and DDs though if they duel. I’ve also noticed that if launched against another lone Dutch cruiser, you lose one or two air, but if dropped on a tighter group of ships, you may lose half of the damage potential as the drop air dies before dropping. Again, it mostly seems to spook people into moving, which can be handy but requires your team to react proper to the target opportunity that arises. They don’t of course. I’m sure that when you get more air strikes at once and when there is more ships, that dodging becomes harder. But a torp strike would still be more stealthy and deadly. At this point, I’m starting to think some people let their anti-CV fears cloud their judgment and cried wolf.

Did two matches with Kijkduin so far, one in basic state and one in upgraded state. (36K inand 59K damage in T6-8 matches), 3 kills (Kidd, Budy and Zara, all with main guns. Only hit one air strike attempt on that Zara that sailed in a straight line and did little over 2K damage, any HE volley deals more reliable damage. So far at most it's a nice spotting tool to look over mountains, but you got spotter aircraft anyway, so you can already do that. Air strike did seem to flush out some DDs and if they got AA on, it'll give you an indication of where it is from the AA spam, even out of sight in cover. Once you're seen by a BB, it's over quick. I'm not convinced Kijkduin has what it takes to dominate a match, De Ruijter seems more solid in that regard so far. Torpedoes, even a single one are by far stronger and stealthier than an Air Strike.

Not to mention disparity per side in ranked.

2,445 (31.06%) Battleships 525 (6.67%) Aircraft carriers 2,738 (34.78%) Cruisers 2,165 (27.50%) Destroyers Glad you're not making up easily verifiable claims.

Oh I don't know, the AA seems fine for tier 4, leaving you to roam quite freely. Gun angles are good enough to fire over most islands, but not too high that they become hard to track mortars like Bogatyr's, range is good enough to inundate enemies with constant fire. AP power is a bit meh, but not as poor or lacking options as low tier British cruisers. It does very well against DDs. Killed two CVs and they barely touched me. The Hosho tried though as you can tell. And note that this is without any AA improvement perks. I'm highly considering getting some for the first time, since at higher tiers it'd make you invulnerable against CVs. I'm getting plenty top team ratings. So far it seems to outperform all my T4 cruisers of old, except the Phoenix.

Can't find the Any Key to get through the opening video. :(

Setup a disco playlist to run in the background. Make playing as wrong as you can handle.

The one thing that strikes me as odd, is that nobody reasonable (not talking about certain low WR BB mains who complain about anything non-BB) complains about torpedoes showing up 1km away which can instakill most ships as well and often have similar ranges. Within that comparison, these air attacks are weak and should be weaker than a torpedo strike because they have more range and can bypass obstructions. I would not expect dev strikes be possible, but certainly they should be a hinderance and fires is one way to go about that. In that sense, I'm sure a number of French cruisers and certain DDs create more HE fires from safety and over islands than these bombs will, as these are harder to correct aim for and sustain it. I've also noticed that bomber air strikes appear on the mini-map before the strike, but that the aircraft don't appear very visible if they are at all until they descent. The main issue I have is that these strikes in terms of game mechanics, is that they should go through AA walls before striking and they seem to largely bypass them. If this ability can be combatted with proper AA builds, then the AA builds will have significantly more meaning than they have today. Up until this patch I'd never consider speccing for AA, as it's just not necessary to withstand most air strikes by CV and non-AA builds are more frequently useful as in some matches having good AA does nothing for you at all and just makes you a liability as enemy ships without AA have other perks over you. AA should function much like hydro does in evading torp strikes, but rather than by evasion, by weakening or even cancelling the attack by shooting down all the aircraft. AA cruisers should not be too hindered by these air strikes until the AA modules are largely destroyed. At which point it's just a weak torpedo attack that gets stronger as the defenses of enemies wear down, which is fair enough. Then you got a bit of a rock-paper-scissors build. As is, it seems not overpowered, but it doesn't seem balanced through interaction with other units either. So to summarize, I'd rather have the strikes be potent, but a bit weaker than a proper torp strike, while largely counterable with AA builds, particularly on cruisers. If this gimmick is going to be used, then the armour and stealth should be their main strengths, with the air strike a minor contributive perk, about as strong and useful over the course of a match as 5.5km range torps.

I nearly saw it happen once. I had killed 4 as a DD, got hydroed and died to fire as I had just used repair at low hp, but figured the remaining players would finish of the rest with ease. Imagine my horror when they go and get Soyuzed in the citadel one by one. Luckily one survived at 1500ish hp. Saving my 100% rating in Coop. I mean seriously, people lose these matches? D:

Coding AI is tricky apparently. Since most of their coders code for PvP only, I'm not sure how experienced they are with AI pathing as it's not something they expect players to use much, even if they added an auto-pilot that's still super basic and flawed. The autopilot is a good example of how underdeveloped this section of the code is. Backing up is a huge problem, so is navigating some ships through narrows. The AI doesn't know when to accelerate or break to make it through a tight corner or passage, no matter how many markers you use, they tend to overshoot their mark. AI doesn't back up with steering to get to a nearby position behind you, but goes straight back up and then does something silly, or more likely choses a forward path that involves exposing your ship by going towards enemies instead of away from them. And that's not even the coding for a full NPU (non-player unit) that has to do more. Plus there's a good chance there's conflicting or hierarchical steering input. On the one hand they want NPUs to dodge torps, on the other steer towards the nearest enemy (more or less, if not outright ram it since bots on both sides steer towards one another, sometimes failing in it), avoid islands (seems last in the hierarchy). And sometimes instead of at enemies, they'll try to go for caps centers and just sit there, all confused. Target prioritization is a mess as well: sometimes they focus a player on the other side of the map with nearby threats completely ignored, which must have been triggered by something in their prioritization system (maybe based on class, hp, etc.). Either way, largest threat detection and targets of opportunity aren't selected properly, if at all. And that's beyond leading or selecting the appropriate ammo for the angle. Management of consumeables and all is also poor. Then there's the lack of target memory, where if you smoke as a DD, the AI instantly forgets you're there and you were fighting them. I mean, AI in this game is so poor, I really can't tell why people play it aside from finishing some missions quicker or get some target practice or captain retraining, because it's really not much fun to play coop. :/

So, no information provided to back up claims or even what exactly the subject is. I just read: "Something something coop, something something stars hurr durr anger at something something I can't get it and it's all WG's fault" Stars? Those in Ranked? Those in coop missions? Or... those in campaign missions? I'm going to guess the latter since you whine about getting "stars" in 3 modes... Confusing since supposedly it was about naval battle? D: I don't get it.

I kinda disagree with you that it goes against the basic mechanics of the game to have gimmicky stuff around aircraft. Though I agree more in terms of that it doesn't make AA builds more meaningful as the drops come out of nowhere and bypass AA mostly. But with regards to damage, I'm not yet impressed by the lower tier ships output I've encountered so far. Will have to see when it's actually practised and more numerous though.

As for inflation. Let's look at how much a regular T9 German BB costs in silver and coal. Let's presume the silver value of a ship equal to the coal value of a ship before inflation. Before the auctions. F. der Grosse costs 15.9M Silver. Pommern costs 228.000 Coal. Neither ship can be said to be much better than the other. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, but in game, it's depending on situation, pretty balanced. So they're equally worth in terms of in game combat value. The difference is in exclusivity, because coal is a more scarce resource. Let's compare currencies. The above assuming equality would result in 69.74 Silver / Coal. So 100.000 Coal would be worth 697.368 Silver. Now let's "not create inflation" by offering 125M Silver for 100.000 Coal. Or, 1250 Silver / Coal. That's just 17.92 times the original value. Luckily, there's no inflation here. Right? Let's look at it another way, ~1500 gold could be spend to purchase 10K of Coal to finish the dockyard events. WG makes 1250 Gold to be worth €4,05. So WG put a price on coal at 1500/1250*4.05/10.000 = €4.86/10K Coal. According to WG 15M silver = €27,89. That means, 5.74x 10K Coal, thus 15M silver would, according to WG, be worth 57.400 Coal. 100K coal then is ~26M Silver. So that means offering 125M still creates an inflation of 5x that amount. But again, no inflation here, right? I mean, the previous time you just needed to bid what, 80M, which is 3x that amount? Okay. Glad we're not increasing the minimum cost for coal here between auctions by sharing any targets for other people to outbid. :)

No, you’re willingy participating in a scarcity scheme and clearly unknowingly aggravate it since you think you were minimizing inflation while doing the opposite… That you do so willingly doesn’t mean you havn’t been influenced btw. Pretty clear it is quite the contrary. I’m not judging you for that, you are however telling a lie here whether you (want to) realise it or not. You just hate being corrected. Probably because you don’t like to admit you’re susceptible to marketing ploys and probably because you take critique as a personal assault. You're not very good with handling it anyway. Aside from having those ships, some of your claims are patently false. I bought those ships willingly, not because of scarcity, but because of being a lot cheaper than other premiums and because gold can be acquired in game through Ranked and missions. The Friesland being the only Dutch ship was an obvious choice. For the Nelson I even had a captain available for years. I did not spend more than €8 on any ship in game, virtually all were gathered for free, where a lot of people spend €60 to €100+ on a premium. If anything, I help stimulate the presence of deflated cost premium ship events by participating in cheap events and ignoring anything costly. If prices surpass a certain spending limit I set for myself, I will not partake in it. The Friesland didn’t cost me anything but free exp. I never exchanged gold for free exp. I got the Nelson for free exp in the same way. I did not exchange any currency in an auction for it, nor did I spend gold or silver on it. None of those ships have had their initial set cost increased either, so no inflation was enhanced. You however, have been inflating the silver cost of coal willingly and openly. You seem obsessed to deny this, rather than own it. Instead you try to shift blame or implicate others in a glass house argument to justify yourself to others or make yourself feel better about your own actions. Sorry, doesn’t work like that. You did something, at least have the balls to accept the consequences aren’t what you hoped for. If you want to make an argument, please do, but right now you’re looking desperate and it is kinda pathetic.

You do the same thing why the prices went up. You stimulate it, you participate in it even state how much it should go up to outbid you, so yes, you're responsible for prices going up. Oh dear. Whataboutism. Must have lost an argument. You don't seem to understand the argument. "Fear of missing out" is a marketing strategy... It's got nothing to do with me since I'm: 1. aware of how its psychology works 2. it doesn't affect me as I'm not interested in the first place It's called irony?

Aiming for DD in a turn us easy though, hold fire till you know its rudder os committed.

Aim three lengths ahead and usually that would be a good 4-12K damage per BB salvo. Since DDs operate near enemy front line, a few of those volleys from various ships and it is over. Hence why radar ships with 10-12km range are so effective as some DDs have to get within 7km to even launch torps effectively or have just 10km ballistic range. The gunboating can be done, especially with Kleber, Elbing, Marceau, Blyska, Mogador, or Friesland, but circumstance must call for it. Too much exposure and you easily are overcommitted. Especially around radar ships.

First killed JB with two torps from the front, so probably a detonation. Then Ognevoi and Alaska simultaneously (torped Alaska, while gunning the Ognevoi down). Then ran into Chung Mu at 7K hp, survived at 433hp and burned Izumo to death. :) Fun times. 20210707_141955_PASD021-Fletcher-1943_45_Zigzag.wowsreplay

If you ever pointed a Thunderer's HE at a DD and hit, you'll notice that halfing or instakilling isn't an uncommon process. Many DDs also can die to a single torpedo, depending what torp it is.

By stating it's an unethical practice, indeed. Some people don't mind being manipulated. :) No, it's just a well documented marketing ploy some companies use when they have something on offer that's not really worth it, but needs to be given a sense of inflated value. You called that a wall? Sorry, but 3 minute posts aren't a major effort. :/ Not sure how fast you type or read, but I can type and read more than a word per minute. ;) This is no effort at all. I didn't berate you, I just pointed out that your target and your method of going about keeping 'inflation' low are counterproductive... Make of that what you will, but sounds like you just prefer to double down defensively. I do care about people being duped however. That's the attraction this kind of threat has for me. I also love pointing out flaws in people's logic. Like yours.

Exactly? Thanks for further amplifying my point I guess? But you have to realise you already helped inflate the cost compared to last auction and that this will continue every auction because the offers from the previous auction will be the benchmark for people who missed out and want it nonetheless. The mere existence of this topic probably helps to drive prices up anyway given it provides a way to "check" how to outbid. Provided people are honest with their responses and don't offer a lower number to throw the competition off. Such topics will only serve to increase inflation as did your indication. Because now someone will try to outbid your 125M. So I find it ironic you think you're stemming inflation by offering a rather ludicrous amount of fake currency (which does have a real life purchasing cost relation with regards to the shop) for another abstract currency. All in all, this sort of auction is a horrible idea to give players a false sense of exclusivity by artificial scarcity and fear of missing out. Best way not to inflate the cost? Don't bid at all. Even if you bid and don't share what you bid, people who lost the bid will bid higher next time. And if you get outbid, you'll bid higher next time or miss out. In the end, it's designed to drive people to buy premium or silver currency and use divide and conquer to play people against each other for maximum profits. It's pretty unethical, so I don't participate at all.

Danger of inflation he says, while dumping 125M of one fake resource into another fake resource. :)

With a straight line the "new" hull angle is the same as the old, so I'd doubt it should show much when firing from a straight line. Unless you think it would take in effect by launching from the new position rather than the position at the moment you're actually giving the order to fire?

Only thing you'll notice is that they'll be further off at that distance (this is called maths, ask Pythagoras). This sounds to me like a lag issue between firing and the server registering it has been fired, taking the "new" angle of the turning hull into consideration at the old aiming angle with respect to the hull.