Kartoffelmos

Better speed, possibly better AA, submerged citadel if rumours are to be believed (hooray...), much better brawler due to the turret traverse and speed, better shell performance at shorter ranges (better velocity), better accuracy at close-range (IJN accuracy vs. those of other nations), better manoeuvrability and similar health pool (92,4k vs. 97,2k). Accuracy is supposed to be Yamato's thing so that isn't really any fault of the France. I would also like a source for the less armour claim. If you really want to compare these two ships DPM-wise, the turret angles must also be known, but then again, France has good enough turret rotation speed and rudder shift time to make her back turret at least viable in many situations. Conqueror has slightly better accuracy (10 m difference at max range) and same sigma, but has less hit points. France will also have better shell performance at closer ranges (same as vs. Yammi) but will lose out on longer ranges. However, unless France will have short fuse times, the ship will be better at scoring citadedels in general, especially versus battleships or other ships with "spaced" armour. As for concealment and heal, Conqueror isn't exactly balanced so I fail to see why France should be equally braindead in this regard. See the above regarding ballistics, as well as my last post. If you need to lead less and can penetrate angled armour better (better penetration), wouldn't that make the guns more reliable? In any case, France has better speed and manoeuvrability (huge advantage here). The surface detection disadvantage is rather small as well (18 km vs. 17,82 km). Oh, and please give me the source for the armour scheme. I just hope it doesn't end up like Conqueror's "weak armour" in the way that it's not really weak at all, only more vulnerable to HE. As for Conqueror's consistency, people use the 419 mm guns solely because of the obscene fire chance. There really is no point in using the 457 mm over those and the short fuse time need to take some of the blame for it. Without testing the guns, you cannot draw that conclusion yet. It all depends on how much the superior shell weight and velocity will affect the overall performance. Also, see the above for more pros and cons. Lastly, Montana is in many ways a worse Conqueror, but offers more accurate guns (so worse in randoms but better in clan wars). Having said that, the tier 10 battleships are well-balanced against each other (with Conqueror being somewhat of a moot point due to the HE spam and exstremely forgiving playstyle). I probably missed a bunch of comparable properties, but this should be enough for now. With the current information, I see no reason to complain about France and if she needs a DPM buff, that should easily be discovered when the ship is being tested. I mean, it's like complaining about the Moskva's DPM when Moskva is all about armour penetration, shell velocity and accuracy. TL;DR: People should stop complaining about an unreleased battleship if they cannot see the strengths of the ship. WG's track record of making battleships errr... "playable" should also ensure that she will be "balanced" before release .

Jupp. With the old AFT + BFT, she was good at burning down ships at long range, but the Aiming System Modification 0 made her into a destroyer-killer and a... midrange fire-starter . Oh, I almost forgot about the MM changes which greatly benefited her as well.

I still enjoy the Iwaki. It was a monster when BFT + AFT affected cruiser guns. After the adjustment of those skills, it became merely decent. With the addition of the accuracy module as well as the other concealment/firing range tweaks it became a monster again. Oh, and then WG gave it hydro for no apparent reason...

Consequentially, it is also good at hitting citadels of other battleships, especially since it will (probably) have the same penetration (or better) than Montana (better Krupp value and better gun stats overall). As I wrote earlier, it trades DPM for consistency, which is hardly something to scoff at when it comes to battleships.

Interesting. If these values are accurate, France will have superior gun performance compared to Montana. The shells are heavier (as expected) and the superior shell velocity combined with similar air resistance (0,35 vs. 0,352) will make them quite reliable. They might even outperform the German 420 mm shells with regards to travel time since they have better velocity and more mass but worse air resistance (0,35 vs. 0,299).

Since we are already jumping on the "must buff BB" bandwagon, here are a couple of things to consider: The ship has better sigma than Montana. The ship has comparable dispersion to the Montana, more on this later. Both the AP and the HE shells have a better initial velocity than those of the Montana, especially the AP shells (762 vs. 840 m/s). Now, both the shell weight and the air drag coefficients are unknown, so these might hamper the French long-distance performance. In theory, the shell weight should at least be similar (or better) since the 420 mm AP shells of the Kurfürst have a comparable mass and I doubt that the even larger shells of the France will be lighter. As for the dispersion, here are presumed accuracy/dispersion curves for both the American and French battleships (the latter collected from WG's announcements): As one can see, the French have worse performance at closer ranges but the difference decreases at longer ranges. Montana will have a dispersion of 321,6 m at 26,1 km which is practically identical to that of France. So in short, the ship appears to trade DPM for accuracy (sigma) and (possibly) ballistics. As a cruiser/destroyer player, I cannot say that I am particularly amused.

Heh, I did not know that (or simply forgot ). In any case, I just checked this RSC clan and well...

Bagel pls . Who would have thought that anti-DD destroyers would excel at sinking hordes of questionable players trying to fulfil missions in their non-Concealment Expert and non-camouflaged destroyers?

Meanwhile, people are complaining about battleships being too weak and that the unreleased French battleships are not good enough...

As far as I know, players on the opposing side will never be displayed in pink font, no matter their team killer status. So yes, he probably was pink .

Hmmm, it's almost as if there is some correlation between the battleship heavy meta and the number of destroyers...

But what needs to be adjusted on destroyers? Clearly, there is some room for improvement within that class as well?!

Unless WG do something silly with the shell drag coefficients, the Aigle will have worse performance than the US 127 mm HE shells at close range (700 m/s vs. 792 m/s), but will gain performance on all other ranges due to the heavier shells (40,2 kg vs. 24,5 kg). Now, the real question is, at what distance will Aigle's 139 mm overtake the US 127 mm? My guess is that the Aigle will have better ballistics from 4-5 km and beyond but I guess we'll see (rather soon, considering the ship was supposed to be tested by CC already). Aoba all the way! She might not be the best cruiser anymore, but she sure is one of the most beautiful ships in the game. Too bad that the repulsive teaboos and wehraboos (kriegsmariboos?) will ruin everything!

Met the humblest WoWs-player whilst playing with Bagel (@Vogel) this Tuesday. Sadly, his Yueyang sailed to a different flank than my New Orleans and Bagel's Z-46, so we couldn't be flamed on-stream . On the other hand, his sync-dropping clan mate Shockpirat (in the Montana) helped us tremendously in preventing two Minotaurs and a hostile Yueyang (as well as some other ships) from capping the A-cap on North. I think my multiple radar usages got them severely tilted after a while, and Shockpirat certainly didn't help either. I didn't do all that much damage-wise (not much farming to be done), but blocking three of their tier X ships for the majority of the game certainly helped us win. Was fun listening on the stream while playing the match though. A certain Montana also team damaged me for 5k damage after I didn't pay attention and sailed into her rear. For once, I gave the "team killer" a compliment and it seems like someone was impressed with our division's effort as well .

Does NA get the same (sale) exceptions as EU, or are we receiving different treatment again? Reading the NA article, it seems like the latter and that is extremely disappointing given the recent news regarding unification of events.

On the other hand, the edited article (see my last post) mentions the government of Taiwan (in addition to distinguishing between PRC and ROC) so there's also that: Well, it has never been a simple issue, but I wonder if this also falls under China's official stance of defending "their territory" with force if necessary. But I digress: we are getting very off-topic now .

It was (you can see traces of it if you read the comments on the PA DD article). WG is currently trying to shift the blame to a nameless customer support employee instead of admitting that they made a mistake. A part of this process seems to be the replacement of all "Pan-Asian flags" with a single ensign in order to show their sincerity. EDIT: Here's the buffered version of the article, courtesy of Google: As you can see, the article lists two "versions of China" and this does not sit well with neither mainland China or Taiwan. There isn't a law against it, but Chinese authorities might object to or limit WG's business if they feel that WG is not respecting their authority. Public relations also matter, of course. You can reference to the geographical area or the "Chinese region Taiwan" (even simply Taiwan might do), but claiming that it is an independent nation is not very smart if you want to have good relations with the Chinese market. WoT for instance "bypassed" this by placing the Type 64 tank in the Chinese tech three but gave it the Kuomintang party flag/symbol:

Yet the entire discussion hinges on WG's screw-up on exactly that aspect... I think you should read up on the issue. A comparison can be made to the recent Spain-Catalonia "problem". If Catalonia claimed independence (without recognition from Spain or other nations) and WG released a ship from the nation Catalonia, you would get a similar uproar.

Because the statement alone should have been enough. In addition, I find it funny that you highlight that you don't focus on flags alone when the article you referred to have these sections: In addition, the article which revealed the ships and highlighted "The Republic of China/Taiwan" (thus recognising sovereignty) has been purged of this information so your official apology (where you blame a single person from customer support) is rather hollow. Ultimately, this looks more like the flags are being used as scapegoats (to show that you take the issue seriously) than anything else.

So once again, WG makes a mistake and rectifies it with even more mistakes instead of solving the issue. One would think that correcting the original article and publish an apology (despite how silly this may seem to us outsiders) would be the way to go, but clearly WG is unable to see the actual issue. I mean, is it too hard to write "made in Taiwan" instead of "from the nation Taiwan/Republic of China"? I mean, WoT has managed fine up to this point and that game has a Taiwanese tank in it with the "unofficial" flag and everything. Then again, WoT never had the "Rising Sun" debacle which may have been an inspiration for this issue...

Until otherwise is confirmed, I think it's safe to assume that this will only apply to the Chinese server. Then again, it's not like that server has historical flags to begin with, so I guess the issue was caused by someone being overly offended by the PTS. If it is a global decision however, I'm going to spam the customer service with demands of removing the Soviet flag. You know, since WG is clearly apolitical, wants to avoid breaking local laws and doesn't want to offend anyone with "controversial" symbols .

Well, since events are supposed to be uniform on the non-RU server clusters, I guess we will see some deals this year. I mean, it is a bit hard to claim that Black Friday is a 'Murrican thing when a lot of European countries have imported the practice...

As for the draught/class limitations, I really have no idea: The developers have tested both and I don't know which draft setting they ended up with. Needless to say, a new line does not have to follow the same rules (Graf Zeppelin for instance has class limitations instead of draft limitations). As for the above, IJN destroyers do this all the time so in that regard, you won't see much difference. It really isn't a non-issue: the torpedoes are terrible and thus Shimakaze is the only tier 10 ship with an unnecessary XP grind. When WG themselves don't want you to use the torpedoes, why should you even need to grind through them? It's like giving the Grosser Kurfurst Bismarck guns, it just doesn't make any sense. Yes, they are there because they were viable once, but as it is now, they should have just been removed or changed into an alternate research path. Who said anything about keeping the silly 20 km range? The issue here is that the torpedoes are worthless and in a need of improvement. Even if you keep the current speed/range, I think you are underestimating what stealthy torpedoes are capable of. There is a reason why Benson's torpedoes are deemed dangerous, you know (although not in the same league as Fletcher). You simply have little time to react which will result in a good chance of eating one if they appear from the front. If they appear from the side? Well... The concept isn't flawed but WG's implementation of it surely is. Because they are hellbent of disabling torpedo switching in-battle (as noted earlier in this thread, even before this current discussion), they need to compensate by increasing other ship parameters. I'd rather see destroyers which can toggle deep water torpedoes during the first half (or similar) of the torpedo reload (locked after that limit). That way, you have a trade-off which actually matters: if everything goes according to plan, you are good to go but if a ship appears that you didn't take into account, you may be punished by being unable to deal with it. On the other hand, the Pan-Asian destroyers seem to have very few disadvantages. Yes, they cannot torpedo smoke screens, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the firepower will be enough to be able to contest caps. However, if the list of "immune cruisers" is more than a handful of ships, the destroyers might be more balanced than what it appears at first glance. Not that it matters to the IJN destroyers that they meet though. As for the Shimakaze herself, I would love for the ship to have a better concealment (thus keeping the line consistent), but I was more discussing the fate of the long lance torpedoes. To be honest, I'd rather see them removed until WG can make them viable again. Not to mention that the fighter squad's ammunition limitation promotes fighter-locking. I guess WG wants to remove manual attacks from carriers entirely .

Because the torpedoes are terrible and you are a liability to your team by using them? When not even WG wants you to use them (hence the terrible detection range), why should you be forced to use them in the stock configuration? It's just an awful (free) XP sink which makes no sense at tier 10. Well, your average battleship player will camp near the map edges, spawn or other terrible positions, so in that regard, deep water torpedoes won't change much. On the other hand, it might force players to stick close to the friendly destroyers, as these will provide vision and probably spot the torpedoes. In addition, since they cannot hit destroyers (and hopefully cruisers, but then Shimakaze will need to be able to switch torpedo types in-game) you can make them more stealthy, meaning that it turns into an actual pure battleship counter. As such, if you* eat deep water torpedoes, you didn't position yourself correctly or your destroyers failed. In the case of the former, you should "git gut" and learn from your mistakes and in the case of the latter, you can enjoy the feeling that every other class enjoys when your friendly battleships give up all map control because they just got a new paint job. An unlikely consequence might even be that battleship players start to support their team mates. One can only hope... Then again, WG will probably make deep water torpedoes hit everything except destroyers which will lead to one of two things: They will only be slightly less terrible (aka slightly better detection range) in order to not punish cruisers more than the normal torpedoes. They will be too stealthy, resulting in more passive behaviour. Knowing WG, I guess they will go for the solution that affects the only class left with a citadel... *Not addressed to anyone in particular but more of a general statement.

Neinberg having weak armour? What else is new? Excluding module placement and bow/deck/aft armour, the armour scheme is pretty accurate in this game so I do not think the ship's belt armour will be changed anytime soon. At least you can look forward to the Yorck . (She's not a bad ship though, but she lacks carry potential)