Pukovnik7

Nah. If your DD dies, you can still win. If your CV dies? Well, you can still win, but it will be a tightrope act. And more importantly, DDs do not redefine the rules of the game by their very existence. A game with a CV (or an SS) feels like a completely different game to one where there are only surface ships present.

And this is why damage numbers and statistics in general are irrelevant to how a class performs. WarGaming, are you taking notes?

I got Derfflinger so far.

My guess? Habit. Such behaviour likely originates in reluctance to expose citadel. If you are being fired at by enemy battleships, best way to survive is to keep bow (or stern) pointed at them and get to nearest cover. Turning broadside is suicide. Now add HE spam from rapid-fire smoke cruisers which helps prevent pushing... But as with every habit, you will have people use it when not appropriate.

Yes, really. Think about where you get your information from, how you interpret it, and so on. You will realize that you have much less control over it than you think - especially if you think you have control.

Nope. What I wrote is true for everyone who lives in a modern society. Nobody is exempt, except maybe some people who live alone on mountains with no contact with the wider world.

As I have already said: reality as we see it is basically created by the media. So if you cannot trust the media, you cannot trust the reality. And if you cannot trust the reality, well...

Thing is, alternative facts, Qanon, flatearthers and antivaxxers were created by the PR. I am a journalist by training, and the first thing they told us was that journalism is truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth and only truth. Everything other than that - be it a half-truth or part-truth, truth taken out of context, truth with emotional veeneer, and so on - everything other than what I had noted is either a lie or a mistake. But it is not truth. In other words, something can be true yet still be a lie if it is deliberately provided out of / without context in order to manipulate people. Of course, professors who taught me courses in public relations disagreed with that assessment, but I personally believe it is on mark. Now, according to the definition I have established above, public relations are often lies. They will be either an outright lie (though this is, as you have noted, extremely rare if PR team is competent), a partial truth (so still a lie), something true but out of context (still a lie), something true but with additional facts/flavouring (still a lie). PR will tell truth only if truth is favourable to the employer. There is however a massive problem with this, on several levels. Basic issue is that PR employs journalistic forms. My PR teachers always told us that we have to learn journalistic forms well, even those of us who do not want to be journalists, because they are important for public relations. But there is an issue with this: average person has no time for fact-checking. They rely on looking for patterns, for forms: so if something is in a journalistic form, assumption will be that it is journalism. Problem is, about 90% of texts that are published in the mainstream media nowadays are outright public relations; if you want journalism, you have to look for magazines and other media which are specialized for their niche, not for daily newspapers, and even there you have to sift through a lot of concealed PR to find true journalism. This is made even harder today because basic journalistic forms - such as news and short news - can easily be written by the bots, since they are highly formulaic. Which means that journalism comes in the form of opinion pieces and analyses - but PR also comes in such forms. So what happens is that average person - which, mind you, usually reads daily newspapers instead of specialized trade journals and similar - simply cannot distinguish between journalism and PR, and therefore assumes (oftentimes correctly) that everything is PR. As a result, people not only stop trusting the media, but they also stop trusting the other authority figures as well. Now, this is not solely PR/media's fault - many public figures do indeed lie (and for some, such as politicians, their careers are based on lies). But there is a difference between some people lying, and everyone lying. And for most people, their understanding of the world is based on the media - after all, without media, we would not know anything except for what is happening in our immediate surroundings. Media are literally our eyes and ears into the world. If you can't trust your own eyes, your own ears, is there anybody whom you can trust? If the media lie - and they do - how can you trust the politicians, doctors, and so on? So what does this lead to? Well, in Croatia, we have a saying: "Tko se jednom opeče, i na hladno puše" (He who gets burnt once, blows onto the cold as well" - English equivalent phrase is "Once bitten, twice shy"). So since media is full of lies, misdirections, etc., the end result is that people start assuming that everything published by the media is a lie, misdirection, etc. You know what is the reason why people in Croatia do not want to get vaccinated? Because the politicians and the media are telling them to. They are being told to get vaccinated by the people they trust the least. It is basically an equivalent of a multiple-times-convicted [edited] rapist offering you to drive your children to school. Are you going to trust him? Most people wouldn't, even if - somehow - he is telling the truth in this particular case. And this is why you get alternative facts, QAnon, flatearthers and antivaxxers. These people aren't stupid. They are just mistrustful - and with a good reason. Now, if PR is done properly, a lot of the above may be avoidable. So it is true that PR does not require lying. But avoiding misdirection requires support of the company itself: willingness to admit mistakes, willingness to apologize, and willingness to change. If those three things are not present, PR has no choice but to lie - even if by accident.

True. Now, technically speaking, PR is lying, because you are trying to shape opinion which, y'know... you aren't going to be shaping anything if you are strictly truthful. But the thing is, proper PR is either truth, truth given a different context, or truth out of context... typically some combination of those, but none of what WG is doing.

I've had a few games where there were no cruisers at all... just battleships, submarines and destroyers.

Same here. I have had a few cases where I'd aim at the ship, and it would drop some tens of yards short.

Yes, although not every game.

I am still waiting for you guys to introduce a change that is not either a) stupid, b) insane, or c) forced onto you by the community. Their squadrons consist of a single flight that carries out one powerful attack with all aircraft at once. However, the number of aircraft in the squadron is small. All aircraft have small HP pools and low cruising speeds. OK, maybe something good... Starting from Tier VI, attack aircraft squadrons are armed with powerful HE rockets that have high armor-penetration capabilities. So HE and armour-piercing? Don't we have enough conflagrations in this game already? The attack aircraft of the Soviet carriers are most efficient against battleships and cruisers due to the larger size of their attacking flight and powerful rockets. Starting from Tier VI, attack aircraft are equipped with rockets with good armor penetration and high damage. When attacking a cruiser, approach her side at a 90-degree angle—by doing so, you'll be able to hit the ship with a larger number of rockets and cause maximum damage. When attacking a battleship, try to hit her casemate and superstructure. The rockets will most likely not be able to penetrate the armor belt. Torpedo bombers are most effective against large, slow-moving targets. Their long-range torpedoes allow you to attack from longer distances, but the target will have more time to evade due to their low speed. It's also worth noting that the long arming time will prevent you from effectively releasing your torpedoes in close proximity to the target's broadside. However, as with other Soviet carrier squadrons, torpedo bombers approach their target with all aircraft at once. This allows you to strike with a large number of torpedoes that are dropped with quite tight grouping. By taking the correct lead, you can inflict significant damage to your target. Skip bombers are suitable for hitting most targets due to their long attack range and large size of the attacking flight. The aircraft are equipped with HE bombs that cannot ricochet and have good armor-penetration capabilities. When attacking cruisers and battleships with low maneuverability, aim for their casemate. You can also deal a decent amount of damage to battleships by hitting their superstructures. To do so, aim the reticle slightly behind the invisible side of the enemy ship. The most efficient way to hit maneuverable light cruisers and destroyers is to approach them in such a way that the closest reticle mark of the bombers lies along the ship's course right before the attack. The bombs will hit the enemy ship immediately after they are released and cause significant damage. To deal maximum damage, approach the target's side at a 90-degree angle. So battleships cannot push or brawl because they will loose health to these things - literally everything these carriers have is highly effective against armoured targets, cruisers will get outright obliterated, and destroyers will "just" get permaspotted to death... so balanced, as usual for CVs. Except skip bombers are apparently effective against destroyers. Was that the idea? Nerf rocket aircraft so that everybody will play Soviet CVs because they are the only ones with ability to hunt destroyers?

Managed to salvage a game that we very nearly lost... did I mention the game was a COOP?

So basically, "We are set on a path and we are going down it, reality be damned". Majority of the playerbase? Maybe, maybe not. But do you guys even know how statistics work? Either get the data from playerbase as a whole, or use the sample you have access to. Which is the playerbase that is on the forums. And if feedback in the game questionaries is so positive, why don't you release results on responses to your surveys? It is not like there is anything there that can harm anyone, so no reason to keep them secret. Also, players that are active - on the blogs, on the forums - are more likely to actually write about the game, to recommend it to others, and also more likely to spend on the game in the long term. You guys are behaving like the generals and politicians of World War I. It was obvious after a year that the war will go nowhere, achieve nothing, yet will cause terrible casualties. But the politicians used the exact sunk cost fallacy logic you are using here - "After all those years, time, money and blood invested, we cannot just cancel the entire war, because portion of the population is negative about it.". That is exactly the kind of thinking that the leaders on both sides had in the World War I. And where did it get them? Germany nearly collapsed, and its surrender as well as peace terms allowed Hitler to rise to power. Russian Empire did collapse, which produced Communism and hundreds of millions of dead. Austria-Hungary did collapse, which meant that there was literally nothing in the entire Central Europe that had any chance of stopping Nazi advance. Britain and France had casualties which made them unwilling to stop Hitler later. SUNK COST FALLACY IS WHAT CAUSED NAZISM, FASCISM, COMMUNISM AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY PRODUCED - INCLUDING WORLD WAR 2 AND VARIOUS GENOCIDES. So why are you repeating that same mistake - granted, it will not cause any deaths, but you have responsibility towards the playerbase. So why is Wargaming so irresponsible?

I was referring to this: Important Message for the World of Warships Community | World of Warships "After the test of submarines in Ranked Battles, we made some major changes, many of them based on your feedback—the biggest one was the addition of anti-submarine weaponry to almost all ships in the game. As our next step, we added submarines as rentals to Random Battles to be able to assess which additional changes we have to make in the future. In our announcement we tried to tell you as thoroughly and as openly as possible about the changes and the reasons behind them. After publishing that message, we decided to prepare another post with additional statistics to answer your frequently asked questions. While we continue testing submarines in Random Battles, we do our best to respond to your feedback as quickly as possible. We would like to thank everyone who leaves their feedback. Based on your feedback we‘ve been working on changes for the next update. Many of you highlighted that the Sonar Ping mechanic provides too many advantages, so we decided to divide the benefits into two types of torpedoes. Players will have to choose in the future between homing torpedoes or unguided torpedoes with higher damage output. We also doubled the distance at which the guidance for homing torpedoes is disabled for both cruisers and destroyers." Submarines are not ready for Randoms, much less for being Tech Tree ships. It is questionable whether they ever will be, due to how different their mechanics are. I will quote myself again: Best option would be to divide Randoms into two game modes, one for surface ships only, and another that includes carriers and submarines as well. *edit*

I played them two times and that was that. Too boring and too stupid. Can't wait for old ops to be back up again.

BB = Rock DD = Paper CL = Scissors CV = Thermonuclear Bomb S = Lava Flow

What about submarines? And mind you, even this would not address fundamental issues with the class, but at least it would make submarines into somewhat-bearable trip-mines.

I just played first COOP game in a while, as I wanted to farm some credits the easy way... These are all bots, so you can't say it is a question of player skill... anyway, so much for submarines not being overpowered. Bot submarine tied with the second best player in our team.

Monetization: excellent. Nice to see a positive change. Feedback and Communication: Nice. Now just to implement it... Submarines: Good changes, but none address the fundamental issues with the class. First of which is, admittedly, is the class' very existence. The only way to make it somewhat balanced would be to make submarines into worse, submersible destroyers: destroyer speed on surface, 10 knot speed underwater, unguided torpedoes with no pings, with low health; all of this compensated by lower detectability than destroyers, and ability to submerge as a de-facto replacement for destroyer smoke screen.

You kidding? I get them on random drops and can't figure out how to get rid of them! EDIT: Anyway, when I was testing subs, you could get them for coal.

Personally, I'd vote Vanguard. With her Atlantic bow and general profile, she has some kind of elegance. I also rather like the Bismarck twins.

Share replays where you got stuck or otherwise screwed by the dear submarine environment. 20211108_142415_PGSB110-Grossdeutschland_51_Greece.wowsreplay

Well, if you limit yourself to destroyers and torpedo boats, that actually wouldn't be far from the truth. Especially in case of the latter... At any rate, it is quite a pity we don't have a Battle of Vis PC game...