Kartoffelmos

I think it's more likely that it is lazy translating/copy-paste at work than anything else, but I guess we'll have to wait and see if WG EU will surprise us .

If I'm not mistaken, collectors are a special group on Russian server that are allowed to test ships. If I remember correctly, you need to have a certain number of ships in your port in order to apply for the title of a collector.

There are no problems with overpenetrations so your "friend" is lying. If anything, battleships are doing too well at the moment.

Maybe I overreacted to the "childish stomping"-remark, but it's all water under the bridge, as they say. Regarding 'Murrica stronk, I really dislike that sentiment as well, particularly the end of the war in Europe (including D-day and especially how it is depicted in media) and the end of the war with Japan and the events that leading up to the surrender. Not to mention how they defined the aircraft/ship detection range. A larger vessel (particularly regarding aircraft) will be detected much earlier than a smaller one. A nice and interesting read regarding the rest though . I knew of the improved RN radars, but NavWeps really present the data in an orderly manner (though lacking somewhat in detail regarding ranges). Depends on the technology and how well it is optimised, but usually shorter wavelength (higher frequency = more energy) or longer range (stronger signal aka more waves). This is more of an educated guess than anything else, so I may be wrong. I'm quite confident in the first effect though, but that depends on the technology used and what that is capable of. Are you implying that we have gone off-topic?

Did you notice the author of the blog and article by the way? Or did you just read the word blog and decided that it wasn't credible enough? You know perfectly well that that isn't the issue here. Again, I don't care who's right (I'm not even the one that claimed that US radars were the best), I'm annoyed that you shift the criteria for your objections every time someone is proving you wrong. If you had voiced opinions, yes, the mature way would be to recognise the difference in points of view and then change positions or acknowledge that both (or more) opinions holds merit. When posting factually correct/incorrect information, not so much. If you find that the British had better radar technology, fine by me. I don't have any national bias and am more interested in the technology in any case. Lastly, why you found it to be a good idea to "attack" my motives instead of addressing the issue is beyond me, especially since I believe you have complained about that very same behaviour earlier on these forums.

So to conclude this nonsense, you started by objecting to the fact that the US had better radars throughout the war, then modified that to "the RN had better radars in the first half of the war", then modified that to "RN had better radars at the start of the war" and now to "RN had better radars in service until the US installed their versions in 1941"? Fine, but you are not done modifying your statements. The US radar entered service in 1940 while the Royal Navy version was employed in 1939 (please don't bring up the "fact" that Wikipedia lists the year as 1938, since this is the introduction of the prototype version). Even then, the US radar was more advanced, both in the prototype stages and regarding the finished version, so I'm not sure how this is a victory for the British radar. The sad part is that I don't really care about who was first/best, but I really dislike it when people write X was best/better without providing any sources or detailed specifications/explanations as to why that is.

Why do you think I compared the American one (installed December 1938) to the improved version of the British one (installed September 1938)? Also, the Type 79 was, as far as I know, the first radar employed by the Royal Navy, so good luck in finding better ship-based radars. So again, the US had better (naval) radars at the start of the war. A higher resolution is better than longer range since you can identify the size and number of planes incoming and act accordingly. If we were talking about land-based radars, you would have a point (more time to get the fighters airborne), but alas we are not.

Britain developed airborne radars faster than USA; hell, the first airborne radar of the US was based on the production model, the ASV Mk. II . Though, the Mk. I was unreliable, it had a very good resolution but limited range (not that important for aircraft and weight limitations is also an issue). Regarding Japanese radars, they were more focused on obtaining firing solutions. Thus, the later models could detect ships at very long ranges with good resolution, but they were lacking in the AA-department. Their plane-based radars (Type 64, 1942-ish) were good though (2 m wavelength, range up to 100 km for both aircraft and larger surface vessels). Doesn't change the fact that the American version was more advanced. If your only argument is "it had better range", then I guess you are entitled to your own personal opinion. Not to mention that it is you who are picking specific "highlights" and ignoring everything else. Oh well.

Yeah, I know. I'm just hoping to see what Fallen Kefir's () claims are based on. I mean, the radar I posted has a calculated wavelength of 1,5 meters and given the other examples posted in this thread, I'm eager to see the British equivalent. Heh, the post arrived while I was writing: Since I cannot be bothered to find better sources, I'm going to assume that Wikipedia is accurate regarding the specifications (the sources seem reliable). I'm going to use the modified version from 1938 to compare the technology : Nation Detection range, aircraft Detection range, ships Resolution/wavelength British 98,0 km Incapable? 7,0 meters USA 77,2 km 16,1 km 1,5 meters Seems like only the improved version (1941) had the ability to detect surface targets. Even so, the range for this was only 3,7–11,1 km. Sure, detecting aircraft from a longer range has its advantages, but there is no denying that the American equipment was more advanced. While talking about radar, it is somewhat funny that the Japanese had developed quite decent ones (looking for technical specifications right now), but they were not employed because the military branches did not see the full advantages in using them.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the improvement you are referring to happened in 1940 while the radar in my source was developed prior to that. Yes, the British improved the technology needed to create more accurate radars, but I'm still waiting for someone to give a source of a British naval (not land-based) radar from 1939.

Well...

The only thing I could think about when reading this was Belfast. I'm not sure why though... In any case, the issue is more with the fact that a battleship has more utility than a cruiser. Again, why play a cruiser if the Conqueror can do the same duties as a cruiser without the survivability issues? Why should a battleship receive anti-destroyer tools when destroyers are supposed to counter battleships?

I seem to recall a certain clan discussing the development of a "elevate/lower island"-hack... It seems like they have succeeded!

I received two of those compensations and I didn't disconnect in any of my games (stopped playing when news of the server crashes appeared). Seems like there's an automated process that checks when players played and hands out compensations to everyone who fits the criteria. I have yet to receive the mail though.

If the accuracy remains the same (as in, the accuracy at the new range corresponds to the old accuracy at the same range), the change can hardly be called a nerf. Forcing the imbeciles that stay at long-range into a more optimal range is not a bad idea.

Met P2Win in a random game when I was divisioning with Vogel. I was sailing in the Amagi (Bagel used his Edinburgh) when I noticed a suspiciously active smoke cloud. After launching my spotter plane in order to blind-fire the tracers, P2Win's Kutuzov appeared. I got a good ~30k hit in and a Fuso did the rest. After a lot of questionable decisions by both teams (mostly the battleships), we managed to finally secure the win. One of the players in that game must have been overly salty, since both Bagel and I received a negrep .

Sub_Octavian and WG/Lesta confirmed to be CA-mafia!

Well, the only thing I'm concerned about at the moment is the battleship overpopulation and these high-tier RN battleships are, in my opinion, a huge step in the wrong direction. I mean, why take a Hindenburg for a spin when the Conqueror does everything Hindenburg does, only better? Sure, it isn't as fast and has a worse turning radius, but it retains all the strengths of the battleship class and the zombie-heal pretty much nullifies the hit points disadvantage (which is already superior to cruisers to begin with and will most likely let her be able to hold her own against other battleships). Let's use the Moskva or the Henri as an example of a cruiser delving into battleship territory: she receives big guns with longer reloads (though not at the same level of battleship ones), yet retains all the weaknesses of a cruiser (relatively squishy). The Conqueror gets the rudder shift of a cruiser, the utility of a cruiser and adequate top speed while keeping the armour (a little on the light side, but battleship-level nonetheless) and firepower of a battleship. Where is the trade-off?

In ranked, I once got three citadel hits on another Fuso with a single volley. Clearly, Fuso is underperforming and is in a dire need of a buff! (The first part is true by the way. I guess RNGesus tried to compensate for all the lousy teams lately)

Not sure if I agree. The amount of games I've lost due to potatoes in destroyers that play selfishly and/or sit broadside in smoke (guess what happened?) is just depressing.

I oneshotted a Gaede with my Fuso in ranked. I hit her with three (might have been four, can't remember) regular penetrations and some overpenetrations and this was done at a distance of 10+ km. #FairAndBalanced

I'm pretty sure that even if the (European) supertesters complain, you will see radar/hydro on the British battleships. Unfortunately, the developers seem hellbent on shoehorning gimmicks onto every new line/ship in order to create demand. Bad battleship captains will continue to camp because: They have the range to do so There is nothing ingame that indicates that you are rewarded for tanking damage For a bad player RNG at max range is equal to RNG at close range (good aim is irrelevant/confirmation bias, etc.) They don't see themselves as the problem but rather the "noob team" that dies too quickly They get "punished" for reducing the engagement distance (more torps and easier to be damaged by cruisers at these distances, etc.) Most don't seem to understand the capping/point system (how else can one explain the BBs that sails around the open caps?) So, giving BBs these tools will mostly benefit players who have a decent understanding of the game and really good players will abuse the crap out of it. On the other hand, when you combine this with RN cruiser heal. you suddenly get a somewhat potato proof ship that allows players to recklessly push into bad situations in order to use radar on destroyers. Not necessarily. The matchmaker tries to balance ships by nation. Unlike US battleships, the RN battleships will not have an equally tiered counterpart without radar. This does not make radar-battleships any less silly though.

Seems like there's some justice in ranked. We were the only ones who actually played properly. Our Fubuki might as well have been a bot (~37 % WR in ranked) since she refused to contest the centre cap and instead pushed the 8-line along with the rest of our cruisers .

Apart from the guy playing like a potato, I can see why WG has "problems" balancing the ship. It's not like it has too much of everything at the cost of hit points... Removing the silly zombie-heal and radar, reducing the range to ~22 km (or should Yammi receive a range buff due to historical reasons? ) and tweaking the HE shells would be a good start. Compensate the low HP pool with shorter cooldown of the regular repair party and the result should be a lot more balanced. The ship is still manoeuvrable and has great gun parameters, so there is still some issues with her as she may outperform cruisers in cruiser-specific roles though.

Well, a three-man division accounts for 25 % of the lineup in a random battle. A two-man division in ranked accounts for 28,6 %. That's quite the potential impact for what is supposed to be a mode that reflects individual skill (or time invested ).