Pukovnik7

Eh, WG doesn't give a ****... Not a single bad decision - from CV rework onwards - had been rolled back so far. They are like Russian generals: keep doing the same thing even when it clearly doesn't work.

It is clearly Chrome steel. Probably produced by Googol Inc.

No, now it is "Don't get angry". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch_ärgere_Dich_nicht

That particular bug was the final nail in the coffin for me to stop playing. That being said, @AkerJack , try assigning SPACEBAR as your "fire" button. It worked for me, though I still decided to simply drop the game for time at least.

It has nothing to do with skill. I had >50% win rate while I was still playing regularly. I got there from below 30% win rate in early matches. Skill is just a question of practice. But something you don't understand, what you refuse to understand for whatever reason, is that game is primarily there to have fun. Why should I practice something that makes me want to tear my hair out? It is not like I am getting paid for playing the game.

OK, I understand that WG uses "historical realism" as an excuse for a lot of stuff such as presence of aircraft carriers and submarines, as well as weak AAA. HOWEVER... What misses here is the fact that while World War II AAA was weak when it came to shooting down aircraft... it was very good (at least when it worked properly... cough cough Bismarck, Prince of Wales) at causing pressure and forcing pilots to drop from further away. It took a lot of training and experience, and literal nerves of steel, to pull off stuff that Japanese pilots did during attacks on Force Z. Most pilots would not be able to pull that off... they would not get shot down, but they would panic and drop their ordnance far sooner than optimal, thus allowing the ships to evade the attacks.

You didn't correct anything. You just lied. 1. Last time I checked, this is a team game. Team behind it is kinda assumed. Fact still remains that submarines make it less likely anyone will push. 2., 3. Easy to dodge? LOL. I see you are still living in your fantasy where submarine is the only threat around. And yeah, that is bullcrap. You are aware that some people play games to have fun, right? False. Subs can mount camouflage as well. Yes, destroyers can also have concealment expert, but for vast majority of destroyers against vast majority of submarines, they will still be at a disadvantage. 1. Submarine gets homing torpedoes. So it doesn't need guns, and effective torpedo alpha still advantages submarines. 2. No, destroyer just has to worry about everything else. Like spotting by air (carriers), spotting by submarines, spotting by other destroyers... submarine can just dive to escape literally all of it. And it can fight back during the entire time. Destroyer trying to escape has literally half the armament rendered useless because you don't use guns if you are trying to disengage, due to gun bloom. You are presenting an advantage as if it were a disadvantage. Yes, destroyers are stealthy, but they have hydro, radar, other destroyers, gun bloom and aircraft to worry about. Out of that entire list, submarine only needs to worry about hydro. 3. Yeah, no. Destroyers have superior speed, but submarine can move at significant speed while at periscope depth. And some submarines such as Salmon are actually faster than some of the slower destroyers. My "fantasy" happens to closely aling with reality. Yours on the other hand... Well, so will I it seems. WarGaming screwed up the game again, so I'll take a break until they figure out how to make mouse actually work again. No, you are ignoring reality in favor of your own fantasy. No. But 3 vs 3 is supposed to be fair. And with most ships, it is. But if one of enemy ships is a submarine, you're screwed in terms of fairness. Though I would still take submarines if only they removed carriers, so yeah, submarines are not the worst class in the game. My dreams are closer to reality than whatever you think reality is. Uh, that is bull. You may not have noticed, but ships tend to move in this game. They also tend to die. In other words, slipping by the enemy team is merely a matter of waiting for an opportune moment. Submarine however doesn't really need to wait for such a moment, or can find it much sooner, due to its 2 km concealment when underwater (and at maximum depth, I believe submarine can only be detected by hydro). Only smoked-up Italian destroyers can rival that, and their smoke lasts for only a few seconds anyway. Nowhere as often and nowhere as easily as with a submarine. Single video is good enough to show nature of interaction between different classes. And nature of interaction with submarines can be summed up as "BS". Difference here being that submarines basically have no RNG. Which means everything is up to skill of a player, and WG has made submarines overpowered to compensate for the fact that potatoes rushed to play them hoping for easy kills. Shima kinda is OP if you are in a battleship. Difference is that Shima can be countered by a gunboat DD. Submarine, not really. Yes. Praying that submarine player is a moron. Which to be fair, 95% of them are. OK, you officially have no clue either about the game or how to have fun. Shooting each other at close range is not yoloing. Yoloing is unsupported rush that typically ends in death. And it is in fact possible to have a good yolo - few can be seen here: This is actual pushing: But according to you, both of these are YOLO and need to go, and ships need to camp and J line shooting HE entire day. Yeah, you and reality have definitely gotten divorce papers sorted out. LOL. No, you just don't know difference between yoloing, pushing and brawling because you think game consists of camping on A line and shooting HE at maximum range. Oh, I am aware. Doesn't mean their opinion is correct, especially when a minority tries to present itself as majority. Why are you not playing European Ship Simulator then? Or WarThunder - its naval battles are far more realistic... while still being more fun than whatever you want World of Warships to turn into. Please take your own advice. Why am I not surprised? It is engagement ranges, and how they impact tactics in the game. Funny, I thought you liked boring focus down matches? Because everything else you have written seems to argue that way. Read what I wrote again. Especially a bit about importance of islands. OK, you have officially no reading comprehension. Too little diversity can be bad. Too much diversity can be bad as well. That is literally what I wrote. Too much diversity can be as bad as too little diversity. Too little diversity is what you have at Tier I, and why it is so boring. Unarmored ships shooting HE on relatively open maps. End result: everybody stays at maximum range and camps. Too much diversity is what we have right now. You have surface artillery ships (battleships, cruisers), hybrid artillery/torpedo ships (destroyers), stealth minefield ships (submarines), and do-everything-screw-everyone Fist of God ships (carriers). Ideal balance would be basically a game of rock/paper/scissors - battleships kill cruisers kill destroyers kill battleships. Then you can build more nuance onto that (e.g. battleship / battlecruiser split, heavy/light cruiser split, artillery/torpedo destroyer split) and add some specialist differentiation. Capisci? I think we have already established you are a fairly unique person. OK, you have no clue. Secondary-build battleships? They are literally designed to push. Gunboat destroyers? They cannot really punish pushing, and in fact exist to keep torpedoboats at bay... in other words, to allow pushing. Cruisers do punish pushing to an extent, due to island camping mechanics they utilize. But only classes that have major negative impact on ability of both teams to push are carriers and submarines. Yeah, they do. But actually using them requires far more skill than for submarine torpedoes. Yeah, I doubt I will. Anyway, I will do it when WG fixes whatever they have screwed up now.

I only started playing seriously just after the CV rework. I had some matches before it, but that was... in Tier I, where you don't have CVs. So yeah. WG should probably roll back all the changes they had made in last 5 - 6 years. Yeah, that would work.

I solved the issue by adding SPACEBAR as alternate fire button. Bit awkward to get used to, but it works. I don't exactly have time to do anything else when trading shots with another destroyer.

In short, you are pretending I am talking about something I am not talking about, answering arguments I have never made. That is what I meant by "moving the goalposts". Evidence? Play the game, please. A single submarine can prevent pushing on its flank. Best defense against homing torpedoes is DCP - which, if you may recall, is literal lifeblood for battleships, and extremely important for cruisers and destroyers as well (Last Stand skill helps only so much). Second best defense is moving away from the ping, to gain distance from torpedoes and hopefully prevent having to expose entire damn citadel to enemy battleships, which is something you often need to do when maneuvering to avoid torpedoes. Tell me, how often do you get close-range brawling situations when there are submarines in the game? Frankly, I'd prefer battleships sitting next to islands bow-in so long as I knew I'd get my brawl in later portion of the game. But when you have submarines and/or carriers in the match, entire match is very likely to be fought, won or lost, at long range. So yeah. Passive, campy and boring. And now you are flat-out lying. Tier VI: Submarines Cachalot (US) - 6,4 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,3 km by depths (submerged), 2,3 km by air U-69 (GR) - 5,7 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,1 km by depths, 2,1 km by air Undine (UK) - 5,5 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,0 km by depths, 2,0 km by air Destroyers Farragut (US) - 7,3 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,7 km by depths, 2,7 km by air Gaede (GR) - 7,3 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,4 km by depths, 3,4 km by air Icarus (UK) - 6,6 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,6 km by depths, 2,6 km by air Fubuki (JP) - 6,7 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,0 km by depths, 3,0 km by air Hatsuharu (JP) - 6,5 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,8 km by depths, 2,8 km by air Gnevny (RU) - 6,8 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,9 km by depths, 2,9 km by air Guepard (FR) - 7,5 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,6 km by depths, 3,6 km by air Aviere (ITA) - 7,1 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,9 km by depths, 2,9 km by air Fushun (PA) - 6,8 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,9 km by depths, 2,9 km by air Vasteras (EU) - 6,9 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,0 km by depths, 3,0 km by air TIER VI: Not a single destroyer has better concealment than the least stealthy submarine (Cachalot) either by sea, by depths or by air Tier VIII: Submarines: Salmon (US) - 6,0 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,2 km by depths, 2,2 km by air U-190 (GER) - 5,6 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,1 km by depths, 2,1 km by air Sturdy (UK) - 6,1 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,2 km by depths, 2,2 km by air Destroyers: Benson (US) - 7,2 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,9 km by depths, 2,9 km by air G.J. Maerker (GER) - 7,8 km by sea, 0,0 - 4,4 km by depths, 4,4 km by air Z-23 (GER) - 7,7 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,5 km by depths, 3,5 km by air Lightning (UK) - 6,8 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,1 km by depths, 3,1 km by air Kagero (JP) - 6,6 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,1 km by depths, 3,1 km by air Akizuki (JP) - 7,5 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,6 km by depths, 3,6 km by air Kiev (RU) - 8,7 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,6 km by depths, 3,6 km by air Ognevoi (RU) - 7,5 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,0 km by depths, 3,0 km by air Le Fantasque (FR) - 7,9 km by sea, 0,0 - 4,1 km by depths, 4,1 km by air V Cuniberti (ITA) - 8,2 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,2 km by depths, 3,2 km by air Hsienyang (AS) - 7,2 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,9 km by depths, 2,9 km by air Oland (EU) - 7,2 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,2 km by depths, 3,2 km by air TIER VIII: Not a single destroyer has better concealment than the least stealthy submarine (Sturdy), either by sea, by depths or by air Tier X: Submarines: Balao (US) - 5,9 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,2 km by depths, 2,2 km by air U-2501 (GER) - 5,6 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,1 km by depths, 2,1 km by air Trasher (UK) - 6,1 km by sea, 0,0 - 2,3 km by depths, 2,3 km by air Destroyers: Gearing (US) - 7,3 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,4 km by depths, 3,4 km by air Elbing (GER) - 8,0 km by sea, 0,0 - 5,0 km by depths, 5,0 km by air Z-52 (GER) - 7,5 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,7 km by depths, 3,7 km by air Daring (UK) - 7,4 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,5 km by depths, 3,5 km by air Shimakaze (JP) - 6,9 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,4 km by depths, 3,4 km by air Harugumo (JP) - 7,7 km by sea, 0,0 - 4,2 km by depths, 4,2 km by air Delny (RU) - 9,1 km by sea, 0,0 - 4,4 km by depths, 4,4 km by air Grozovoi (RU) - 7,4 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,8 km by depths, 3,8 km by air Kleber (FR) - 9,6 km by sea, 0,0 - 5,4 km by depths, 5,4 km by air A. Regolo (ITA) - 8,9 km by sea, 0,0 - 4,3 km by depths, 4,3 km by air Yueyand (AS) - 7,2 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,4 km by depths, 3,4 km by air Halland (EU) - 7,4 km by sea, 0,0 - 3,4 km by depths, 3,4 km by air Tier X: Not a single destroyer has better concealment than the least stealthy submarine (Trasher), either by sea, by depths or by air. Literally the only advantage a destroyer has over submarine of the same tier is speed, which may allow it to run down the submarine. Except submarine needs only to dive to make destroyer's guns useless, and to use depth charges, destroyer has to be literally on top of the submarine. Now combine this with homing torpedoes which force targeted ship to either a) carry out a possibly suicidally violent maneuver, b) sacrifice the all-too-important DCP, or c) both, and anyone would understand why submarines are a massive problem - and doubly so in capable hands. OK, maybe something has changed since the last time I have played submarines. So I'll play submarines again when I get time, and then we can continue this. But I see you are again ignoring a) class interaction and b) the fact that counters to submarines you state are oh so powerful are in fact quite difficult to implement, and that even if successful they do not solve the basic issue of submarine's impact on tactics in the game itself. Yes, it is easy to evade torpedoes when it is just me and the submarine and when I know where submarine is and where torpedoes will be coming from. See the problem? Submarines are yet another threat vector, and general response to their presence is to camp farther back in order to avoid them. Or pray and hope you get a map with dense islands, which unfortunately are rare at higher tiers. I have gotten behind the enemy team in a destroyer quite a few times. And compared to a destroyer, submarine has a) superior surface concealment and b) can dive if in danger of being spotted. You don't need to dive to get past the enemy team, you just need to pick a good opportunity. Look, if you can't do it, that doesn't mean it is impossible. I have seen what I have seen. As for how submarine can create a crossfire, very easily. You ping the enemy, launch a number of torpedoes to the left of the target, a number to the right of the target, and viola! Crossfire! And yes, between pings and guided torpedoes, submarines very easily force people to turn. Properly played submarine has very little counter. Just as an example: So either you don't really know how to play submarines, or are making stuff up. Because things I am telling you are the things I have seen submarines do. No, I probably wouldn't be able to replicate most of it myself. Doesn't mean it cannot be done. Or maybe this game has hallucinogenic effects, but somehow I doubt it. I never claimed submarines "cannot be countered". Just that they cannot be countered effectively and in a way that still makes game fun to play. Yes, because everybody is camping A/J line now. Massive improvement, there. </sarcasm> Funny, because that is precisely what is happening now. You remove island camping... people just camp at the J line. That is what submarines have done, and what carriers do as well. Besides, cruising at same line and doing same thing again and again is very much passive gameplay. Only if 90% of teams are bots. I never said anything about yoloing. But apparently, you think that pushing = yoloing, which just is not the case. I really don't understand why people like you want to turn this game into a game of Battleship. Because long range fights very quickly get stale and boring. Longer the range at which combat happens, less maneuvering there is, less variety there is in types of fights, and more boring the match is. Think about this. When ships can only fight at relatively close range, or there are significant obstacles to long-range fire, they can maneuver rather freely, because opportunities to concentrate fire will be few. Due to the way armor interaction works, any ship with armor will be able to orient towards the threat, bouncing shells and allowing it to get close. But if ships can only fight at long range, opportunities for tactical maneuver will be few, because any maneuver will be immediately punished. Same reason why aircraft carriers are terrible for the game. Look at the image below. And no, fights at close range do not necessarily "quickly" end with one ship being sunk. Not if both opponents roughly know what they are doing and there are terrain obstacles they can utilize. And even when they do end quickly, that is still preferable to constant boredom. There is nothing intense about fights at long range. And yes, I have already pointed out that too little diversity can be as bad as too much. You don't need to tell me what I already know. This is arcade game. Purpose of the game is to have fun. It is different because no other class is designed to punish pushing. No other class other than CVs, that is. With a destroyer torpedo spread, you have a choice of eating one or two torpedoes in order to avoid presenting a broadside that would get you citadelled. And destroyer has less concealment than a submarine. With a cruiser, they often suffer heavily in early phases of the game. And as for the battleships, again, angling helps... and they tend to be rather obvious. Maybe you play on Mars server, I don't know, but I have noticed that presence of submarines - in my games at least - tends to make people wary of pushing. Regardless of the balance of forces otherwise on the flank. You don't need to play submarines to tell that playing against them is frustrating. Not necessarily difficult: but definitely frustrating.

It isn't - I know that because I don't have secondary skills on my Vanguard. Issue also appears to have disappeared after I restarted my computer.

Tried playing the game, but I couldn't fire guns at all. All the left mouse click did was to send "attention to square" command. 20230422_203824_PBSB508-Vanguard_15_NE_north.wowsreplay

Matchmaker has many issues (treating hybrids as normal battleships, for one), but I don't think "rigging a team to lose" is one of them. Reason for wipeout games becoming more frequent is the bad basic design of the game, not the MM.

If you had really studied history of British submarines - which I doubt - you would have noticed that they did not hunt warships, except when they stumbled upon them as targets of opportunity. But of course, WarGaming only cares about historical realism when it suits them.

OK, you are just shifting the argument and goalposts to suit your "defend submarines at all costs" agenda. And too much diversity makes the game passive because there are fewer situations which allow for pushing. Ideal division is battleships - cruisers - destroyers. Within that you can have battleship/battlecruiser, heavy/light cruiser, gun/torpedo destroyer. Anything more than that is bad for the game. Funny, because when I actually played submarines, I didn't feel half the threat that I do in a destroyer. I wonder why. Subs are outspotted by some destroyers when on the surface. Except they don't stay on surface when in danger. They are also much smaller target and more difficult to hit when gunfire, and can easily escape any threat barring depth charges. Which, for destroyers, require them to expose themselves to use. When sub dives it can still use sonar pings for "vision". It is actually quite easy to detect a ship you can't see that way. It does negate threat of spotting, but not the threat of homing torpedoes. And I played submarines quite enough on the test server, so don't BS me. That one ping is actually quite enough. Considering its reload, submarine only needs to know approximate direction of the target. And when it gets ping, well, stuff like this happens: And again, submarine's stealth allows it to go past the enemy team. Submarine's torpedoes have longer range than 10 kilometers in many cases, as do pings, which means that quite a few submarines are perfectly safe from attack unless they blunder into the middle of the enemy team. If the teammates are spotting targets then submarines don't even have to use pings in the first place, which makes submarines excellent as supporting units for setting up crossfires. And because of homing, submarines can do stuff like shoot around the islands, something no other ship in the game can. You are assuming that all submarine players are idiots. It is fair assumption for many of them (which is probably the reason they play submarines in the first place), but not nearly all. It is not L2P issue, it is an issue that submarines are optimized around being played by idiots, and so when somebody who actually knows what he is doing plays them, they become very dangerous. And even when played by idiots, mechanics of submarine gameplay still have negative impact on the game. But of course, you are completely ignoring that particular issue because if you don't, you won't be able to blame everybody else and pretend that submarines are just fine as they are. Ah yes, that is the reason why games with carrier are usually more passive than ones without it, and why games with carrier + submarines almost never see proper brawling. I know what I see. Main reason why Tier I is a campfest is: 1) it is populated by people who do not know how to play the game just yet (a.k.a. same people who play submarines in higher tiers) 2) there is no potential for damage mitigation because all ships use HE and have no armor, and so the only defense against being destroyed, if you do not know how to utilize islands (which most people at that tier do not) is to keep away. At Tier II and above, ships start being armored, and AP becomes more important. So yes, you do get ships that can break through. But that doesn't mean that "more different classes = more active game", because a) you always have a "sweet spot" for everything (as I pointed out, BB + CA + DD is ideal setup for a good game, adding either carriers, submarines or both ruins that), b) you have to keep different ship abilities and interactions in mind, and c) some classes (CV and SS) are basically tailor-made to punish pushing. Which is why Tier X is soo intense with close-range fighting, right? Right? If you want to break the camping meta, you have to allow ships to maneuver. That means limiting the spotting as well as crossfire opportunities by using islands, so that a ship that is pushing doesn't get immediately focused by the entire enemy team. Submarines, with their focus on stealth and surprise attacks combined with stupid mechanics (ping and homing torpedoes) are basically tailor-made to punish pushing, as they force the target to engage in evasive manuvers that can easily prove lethal. I have played them, and I stopped after half a dozen games for each simply because they were too boring and too safe.

No fallacy. You just don't understand what I'm saying, or else are deliberately ignoring it. You are also focusing solely on "submarine vs surface ship" as if this were a jousting tilt, and ignoring the impact addition of submarines has on the gameplay as a whole. You cannot look at classes in isolation. You have to understand how they interact with other classes. And fact is that submarines, between 2 km detection distance and homing torpedoes, present a vastly different type of threat compared to any surface ship, even stealthy torpedo destroyer. Destroyer can attack another destroyer with guns from a significant distance. And can then receive support from other ships with their guns. And even stealthiest destroyers lack the concealment to slip between the islands if gap is covered by enemy ship. Submarines when submerged are immune to guns and can only be attacked by depth charges - meaning destroyer or light cruiser rails (requiring them to expose themselves) or air strike ASW (which is carried by ships that generally stay further in background compared to destroyers). They also have extremely low concealment, allowing them to slip in between islands and enemy ships and position themselves for crossfires. All of this (spotting, crossfires, ability to come close) combined with homing torpedoes means that ships that suspect submarine may be nearby have to stay at high speed. This prevents them from properly utilizing islands, and as a consequence pushes them further back towards the map border in order to avoid being devstruck when maneuvering to avoid submarine. And even ignoring all of the above, fact is that submarines are yet another different type of boat with completely different gameplay. And larger number of heterogenous threats always results in more passive games as there are more things to take into account and counter, regardless of how threatening said threat may be individually. It is most camping prone because there is literally no counterplay. No ship has armor, all ships use HE ammunition, and all ships have such short gun range and maps are so small that islands don't really matter for damage mitigation. Meaning that the only defense is distance - which then teaches players bad habits. Yet you are here, defending two classes which require literally no brainpower to use (submarines and CVs) and which remove thinking from the game because the best counterplay is to stay back and act like a zombie. Oh the irony.

If yolo is stupid, then idiot gets himself killed quickly, regardless of the setup of the teams. Difference is that more diverse threat environment, and CVs and submarines in particular, prevent opportunities for pushing from being created in the first place. Threat of spotting is greater, threat of crossfire is greater, and both CVs and submarines can in fact create their own crossfires - something no other ship can. And I take it you haven't played Tier 1 in long time. With the exception of bots, Tier 1 is definition of camping. Human players almost never brawl at that tier. It's boring as f. Game is only really interesting at tiers II through VII. IX and above are again way too much camping. To somebody who finds enjoyment in ruining other people's fun, maybe.

Because the actions that are required to counter it make the game more passive and less enjoyable. Is that so hard to understand? Just like CVs, airstrike cruisers and now hybrids, submarines are another class that discourages pushing and active gameplay, and instead promotes passivity. But I guess for you it would be L2P issue even if WG introduced SSBNs and nuclear airstrikes...

Oh, countering subs is easy. That doesn't mean they are not bad for the game.

I really want some of the stuff you had been taking, because that is not what video shows at all. Also, imagine threading the needle while being shot at. Subs are toxic, the fact.

I can play around radar. Problem with all the spotting crap (aircraft and radar) is that "playing around them" usually leads to more passive matches. Which means more boring game. If I can't get enemy within secondary range, then playing battleship isn't worth it for me. And whether I can play destroyer depends on what my current ping is. In short: why would I play a game that is a chore to play? The only value I see in the game right now are the screenshot opportunities (all praise the art department!) and Operations. I don't think it does. First, you can do tanking by simply putting your BB's [edited]somewhere threatening. Second, if you can spot enemy destroyers and have them die, that is far more value in terms of winning the game than simply tanking few tens of kilos of damage. I would really love to see that data, because quite frankly, WarGaming simply cannot be trusted. They're a bunch of liars - remember when they said there will never be submarines in the game? Have they ever actually released said famed data?

OK, so there is hope they may do something.

Was this posted?

Potatoes are not something that can be controlled by game design. If you try, you end up with artificially balanced win rate. These things however? They have to be balanced, or else WG could just remove balance at all... imagine a game of 7 BB and 5 CA against 2 BB, 2 CA and 8 DD...

Until now, I would have agreed. However, as Jingles points out here: Hybrids being counted as battleships can end up with one team having a massive advantage as they will have a hybrid (or two, or three)... to enemy having none. It is a repeat of the same issue that exists with radar cruisers: matchmaker doesn't give a crap about whether cruiser has a radar or not, just that it is a cruiser of the same tier. So what to do? Easy. Either a) make MM account for things such as hybrids and radar, or b) remove hybrids and radar from the game. Personally, I would prefer b), but seeing how it is a pipe dream, I'd take a). Except that too is a pipe dream as well, seeing how WG doesn't actually care about playability of the game.