Kartoffelmos

Since cruisers are near useless (short engagement ranges, lots of BBs, etc.), what did you expect? In my experience, you see more battleships (usually three per side) than destroyers (usually two per side). Of course, I'm currently at rank 12, so it may be different at lower ranks.

I don't think that the changes will have too much of an impact to be honest. The 150 mm secondaries are the ones that do all the heavy lifting since they have enough penetration to not shatter on most surfaces (targets with a lot of 25 mm armour zones will yield worse performance though). (Shattered shells yields less fire chance, right? Or has that been disproved?)

I met Aerroon in ranked (we were both in Fusos). Unfortunately, his team mates were "special" so the game was really short.

Luck. Average luck over a period that can last years. It's somewhat peculiar why everybody doesn't have a 50 % WR though . Apart from the fact that most of the things you listed are synonyms or logical consequences (and in some cases also highly irrelevant), you are also wrong. Here's what BBs have, in comparison: The highest survivability and thus the most forgiving playstyle (health, armour that protects both against HE and AP, heal) The most dangerous guns (alpha damage beats DPM when it comes to dealing with concealed targets) The ability to deny/obtain map control (this ties in with the above, but since BBs is the only class that can do this, I figured that it deserves a separate point) Decent to very good AA The price for all this? Large size (less manoeuvrable than other ships, decent to bad concealment) RNG-dependent gun-wise, but the number of guns (or secondaries for a certain BB-line) partly compensates for this weakness What a bad trade-off . To elaborate on the third point, battleships are the only ships that can effectively push and prevent enemy pushes. By staying near a cap, cruisers cannot challenge the position unless superior in numbers. Destroyers can bypass this, which is why they are important in Domination games (amongst other things like giving smoke and providing information). I probably missed something, as it is getting rather late, but I think I covered the essentials . I would say that both destroyers and battleships have equal advantages but that those of battleships are more easily employed.

You don't have to hit the deck armour you know. Even if we simplify the problem and assume that the shell flies horizontally into the hull, the destroyer can angle enough to arm the shell due to the overmatch mechanic. For instance, if we consider a situation where the shell strikes 19 mm hull plating at a very steep angle (80 degrees between the shell patch and the normal vector of the surface), the following happens (if I remember correctly): 1. Autobounce check: overmatch trumps this. 2. Normalisation: for large caliber shells (>220 mm), 6 degrees is detracted. The striking angle in this situation will then be 74 degrees. 3. Penetration and fuse arming check: effective thickness is calculated = 19 mm / cos(74) = 68,93 mm. This is enough to arm 410 mm AP shells (the WoWs wiki list the arming threshold at 68 mm for these shells). 69 mm is not enough to withstand the shell -> penetration. 4. Detonation check: the game uses the shell's velocity as well as the arming timer to calculate if the shell detonated inside the ship or passed straight through. If we assume that the shell lost 10 % of the initial velocity, we get the following: 806 m/s * 0,90 * 0,033 s (this is the detonation timer) = 23,94 m. The Shimakaze has a length of 126 m at the waterline, but we need to check if the shell would pass through the length of her beam which is 11,2 m: 23,94 m * cos(74) = 6,50 m. This is less than 11,2 m, thus the shell explode inside the ship and causes regular AP penetration damage. In a more realistic example, the shell will have a flight path that may result in the shell leaving the hull underneath the ship, but I think this should illustrate the problem. I might have misinterpreted your post though, but I've done enough calculations now that that is a secondary concern at this point . So yeah, the mechanics is working as intended, but due to the normalisation changes a while back (larger calibre shells had their normalisation decreased, meaning that it became easier to reach the arming threshold), the increased visibility of destroyers (radar, stealth-fire removal), increased accuracy of some battleships (not to mention a certain line of close range battleships) and the overpopulation of battleships, the effect is more notable. I'm not sure how WG/Lesta will fix the issue without a bunch of other side-effects though.

Will you continue to arrange Q&A sessions? I know that the questions should be gameplay-oriented, but given the lack of developer communication on the EU forum (the thread Questions of the Community has been somewhat neglected to put it mildly), I need to ask. Thank you for this session in any case, it is very much appreciated! Regarding toxicity, I will add that your answer can be viewed as a little unreasonable (I guess you meant our of position?) since destroyers like the USN and IJN ones tend to operate within 10 km (as mentioned aboe). The destroyer in the clip performed his role (contesting caps and dropping torps) and was punished heavily for it by the class the destroyer is supposed to counter. Granted, the Shimakaze would probably have been sunk anyway, but still. It would be the same if cruisers suddenly dealt absurd damage to battleships with HE, not to mention that behaviour like this is one of the reason why battleships are overly popular (too universal).

Please discuss here.

After the removal of stealth-fire, are there any ships that, according to collected stats, need additional attention?

Cleveland : 28 Farragut : 14Arizona : 7Shinonome : 19Mutsu : 21 Ryūjō (1/2/2) : 10Fusō : 15Aoba: 19 + 1 = 20, Nippon steel is best steel (also fun to play)Graf Spee : 18Warspite : 14Leander : 21Molotov : 13 - 3 = 10, Only guns are good, the rest is mediocre at bestBudyonny : 9Duca d'Aosta : 26Perth : 30

Can we also have an added tutorial so that the absolute horrible players stop complaining about "violet stetpedders competetive players"? I mean, I have seen post after post whining about "competetive players" and it's getting tiresome.

Please tell me more about how Belfast is representative for cruiser gameplay .

The Iwaki Alpha after the ship received the special first slot upgrade. When AFT was nerfed, the ship suffered badly, but by making her guns more accurate, the short range became less of a problem. Even more so with the removal of stealth-firing. No, I did not miss my opportunity to flaunt my special ship status. What did you expect from a gloriously elitist alpha tester potato scumbag?

It might, but only in extreme cases. For instance, the deck of the Edinburgh (that armed the bombs in the earlier video) is located at the waterline. A bomb armed here might detonate after leaving the hull entirely. On the other hand, it might not do anything except yielding more citadel hits on battleships. Will be interesting to see how those tweaks change the performance. Hopefully the behaviour will be more consistent.

I believe it's tier-based. The first two waves consists of ships of tier 3 and 4 while the next waves add ships of tier 5/6. This holds true for the cruisers and battleships at least, but I can't remember if the destroyers follows this pattern as well (it's not like it's hard to find them since they reveal themselves first).

Pfff, that's nothing! We lost due to the usual not-playing-for-the-objectives style of our battleships. Big surprise there...

You also have this: Further balancing is needed, but it seems like the bombs spread "evenly" along the length (less RNG than regular dive bombers in that regard), thus making evasive manoeuvres more effective. Indeed. I guess (and hope) WG/Lesta made it so in order to get enough statistical data from ST/CC who are terrible at using carriers

On most: not very effective at all. Some cruisers have armoured (well, enough deck thickness at least) decks that can arm the fuse of the bombs (for instance Moskva and fore/aft sections of Edinburgh), but most do not. Turret roofs can be an issue, but it's not like those contribute a lot to the surface area of the ship. As such, (most) cruisers and destroyers will take minimal damage from the bombs.

Doesn't destroyers without detonation flags face the same issue? I feel like your argument is equally silly as the one I just made. You don't randomly explode, you become more vulnerable against the class that is supposed to counter you (we already have a couple of OP carriers ingame, but most of the US ones are not part of those). You can heal some the damage, you can evade, you can sail alongside a cruiser with defensive fire/good AA and lastly, you can wait until the feature is finalised before making exaggerations. On a more general note, I was actually referring to battleships as a class and not the introduction of AP bombs, but now you at least have my stance on that as well. 1. Yes, the cruiser would be dead instead. Not to mention that triple citadel IS rare, especially after the Iowa/Montana citadel shenanigans. 2. Really? That's not my experience of HE-spam. I fall back and heal most of the damage. 3. Few, like in 4+? That is not a few and indicates a massive fail-play by the battleship in question. EDIT: Forgot this: The problem with this is that it will only worsen the problem. Battleship players will, as you wrote, have no issues with this mode and thus will receive an extra incentive to play battleships. This will possibly lead to an even greater overpopulation.

I'm not sure. On one hand, it is great to prevent smoke-camping, but on the other hand, it is a nerf to mainly destroyers and partly cruisers if they choose to push up with the destroyer. In the case of the former, it is not needed at all (destroyers are already far too vulnerable to carriers) and in the case of the latter, it will punish teamwork.

If the class is too rewarding and thus attracting far too many players than what is healthy for the game, the class needs to be nerfed. It is that simple. Adding an arbitrary limit will only fork up the matchmaker. If the BB population remains the same after the limits are introduced (after all, they are still rewarded for not playing optimally), the matchmaker will have to force cruisers into the non-limited slots. With the protected MM range of tier 3-4, it does not take a genius to figure out that a lot of cruisers will be uptiered (shortage of cruisers in addition to the inability to draw tier 4 ships into tier 6 battles -> chain reaction). I mean, I can use an anecdotal evidence from yesterday. In all my tier 6 battles, I was top tier only once... and that was during the low-population hours. This isn't an issue for battleships or destroyers (in my experience), since they still retain their range, heal/smoke and/or stealth, but most cruisers will have to deal with shitty range (or stealth, depending on ship) in addition to the normal issues.

Did you join the mode as a division and then disbanded it before taking the screenshot? You can start other operations than the "operation of the week", but then you need a division of players.

After Mogami received her long-awaited buffs, only the Ibuki can be considered a "bad" ship and that's mainly due to the removal of stealth fire. The rest of the line is solid. One word of warning though: their torpedo angles are horrible so use them as an area denial/anti-smoke tool or set up ambushes.

You must be new around here. There is a reason why the BBaby term emerged, you know. Feel free to use baDDie about shitty destroyer captains though .

I completed "Aegis" with five stars on my first (using Aoba), so I'd say that it is considerably easier than Newport. Equipping a Defensive Fire II (which I didn't) for shorter cooldown will make the mission easier, as the carriers are the biggest threat to successfully completing the escort stage. In fact, I think two dive-bomber attacks managed to start a total of four fires on me and my damage control party just couldn't keep up. We also had a Cleveland, but the captain of that ship decided it was a good idea to trade hit points with the convoy at the very start of the game -.-'. In the end, taking the attention of both the carriers and the last wave of ships makes the last stage pretty easy if you have enough hit points/ships left. The Liberty ships have bot-level torpedo awareness and can take some hits, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Just remember to send some ships up north to spot and destroy the carriers.

Weeeeeeellllll.... As it is now, the games are too different to be direct competitors: WoWs is more fleet-oriented while Naval Forces is more shore defence (?) oriented. If we are to believe the rubbish argument that everybody plays battleships because the popularity of those ships (all of them, since they are dominating almost every tier now), there's even less reason to worry.