Kartoffelmos

I wonder if that has anything to due with the deck armour of the Burger ships. A lot of them has rather thin internal deck thicknesses in the fore/aft sections. There's also the issue of superstructures: American ships tend to have much more obstructions for the bombs than Japanese or German ones. I hope they add proper performance feedback which shows the amount of bounces, overpenetrations and "shattered" bombs. The shape of the drop area means that it will be easier to fail at the placement (though auto-drops seem to be accurate enough size-wise to reliably hit ships), especially if the ship is manoeuvring to avoid the strike. Combining the bombers with torpedo drops will be quite devastating, but is it more deadly than IJN torpedo drops? You also miss out on fire DoTs and if you survive, you can heal a good portion of the damage as a BB . Poor Edinburgh; she has 51 mm of citadel deck armour and 76 mm of deck armour beneath the turrets. I guess the latter caused the bombs to arm.

Here's the full distribution: Class distribution by battles - EU server: 03.06 - 10.06 Class/Tier Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6 Tier 7 Tier 8 Tier 9 Tier 10 BB 140504 223313 270385 335738 412131 557965 168536 133656 CA/CL 154289 201494 290849 337225 279912 231643 99608 95595 DD 53054 94805 155652 125497 159776 122599 93511 96923 CV 0 61602 77992 58793 77778 32178 18366 9307 Total 347847 581214 794878 857253 929597 944385 380021 335481 Class distribution by battles - EU server: 03.06 - 10.06 Class/Tier Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6 Tier 7 Tier 8 Tier 9 Tier 10 BB 40,4 % 38,4 % 34,0 % 39,2 % 44,3 % 59,1 % 44,3 % 39,8 % CA/CL 44,4 % 34,7 % 36,6 % 39,3 % 30,1 % 24,5 % 26,2 % 28,5 % DD 15,3 % 16,3 % 19,6 % 14,6 % 17,2 % 13,0 % 24,6 % 28,9 % CV 0,0 % 10,6 % 9,8 % 6,9 % 8,4 % 3,4 % 4,8 % 2,8 % Total 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % Previous snapshot: A bit more destroyers and carriers this time around, but not any revolutionary changes. A lot more games played, but this might be due to the released patch.

The problem I have with that is that they will: overmatch everything relevant. I found an example of a bomb and that one had a diameter of 15,1 inches (ugh) or 383,54 mm (<3) which means that it will overmatch 26 mm of armour (most if not all superstructures). possibly arm at superstructures by hitting the plate at a very narrow angle. Since WoWs does not have WoT's normalisation (as far as I know), the bomb may hit a 19 mm superstructure segment at a 10 degree angle (or 80 if we use the normal vector of the surface and shell flight path vector), which means that the effective thickness will be 109 mm. With steeper angles, the bomb may simply fail to penetrate due to the thickness becoming too big. Granted, this is for extreme cases, but I would rather have reliable behaviour than a RNG lottery where carriers can drop on cruisers and destroyers and hope for the best.

If I remember correctly, one said that it was a weaker Shokaku and the other said that he didn't see the point of the ship since it ultimately was a weaker Shokaku. Saying the ship is horrible is pushing it, but it isn't balanced either. Still, I would rather see WG/Lesta fixing carriers in general before adding new premium ones.

Normally, yes, but the bombs will bounce if the angle between the shell path and ship surface is greater than 45 degrees. If the bomb hit the side/angled part of the superstructure, it may bounce off and miss the hull completely. I'm not sure if they can overmatch, but I would assume that they can't.

They did, but we have no idea if they are still working on it or if that specific feature has been scrapped. Indeed. There's also superstructure and turret angles which may interfere with the bomb's path.

How do you feel about battleships? You know, since you have described all your issues with the other classes?

And that is not angling the ship? Seems like the new bombs are more accurate if the dispersion numbers are of the same format as those in-game: 51-240 vs. 142-355 m. Depends. If the lower tiers have a penetration threshold of 70 while the higher tiers have a penetration threshold of 100+, there shouldn't be much of an issue. Cruiser turret roof armour can be an exception though.

We don't know anything about loadout changes (f.ex. one AP bomber replaces one torpedo bomber or two regular dive bombers) or the speed and survivability of the bombers (if they will be different), so I am not too worried yet. Besides, carriers are supposed to counter battleships, right? You can still angle against the drop and use your AA if the there is only one AP bomber per CV.

No idea, but I would assume that it is one or the other. They might even replace torpedo bombers for all I know. The way I see it, they work in a similar fashion as BB AP vs. CA/CL. You cannot angle against them, just hope that RNGesus is on your side.

I can certainly say that it isn't a carrier . As for BB AP, it is extremely annoying. I actually fear BB salvos more than CA salvos, since I can't angle against them. With BB salvos, you are forked if you show broadside (same with cruisers) as well as when you are angled (contrary to cruisers). Not to mention that the burst damage from BBs is usually higher than cruisers if they hit with more than one shell.

I find the addition interesting. It may make the BB stronger in early-game scenarios where DoTs can only last 30 seconds, but in late-game scenarios when all charges have been used? One problem with the feature is that baddies will use it as an excuse to play more passively, if that even is possible. I sincerely hope that this isn't a new feature for all ships though (but it could work as a peculiarity for the RU BB line), as that may kill gunboats and cruisers since these ships use DCP quite often.

Enterprise and some/all (not specified, but the mention of alt-drops indicate that tier 4/5 carriers may be excluded from this addition) US carriers have received AP bombs: It's from the SEA-group, but the earlier developer statements regarding AP bombs makes this info quite credible. Source

Why? With the current detonation thresholds, they will overpenetrate everything except battleships/carriers with armoured decks.

EDIT: Reading comprehension is hard apparently, as I misinterpreted that sentence. Sorry about that. Anyway, the gap is quite large at certain tiers, so I would not call the state balanced: Class distribution by battles - EU server: 20.05 - 27.05 Class/Tier Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6 Tier 7 Tier 8 Tier 9 Tier 10 BB 66565 107891 184011 223430 284833 334053 100479 93215 CA/CL 68739 88348 180317 199979 163164 138944 58246 59994 DD 24215 45194 86945 64184 89631 68447 52580 60643 CV 0 29898 47031 34027 36152 18343 10699 5576 Total 159519 271331 498304 521620 573780 559787 222004 219428 Class distribution by battles - EU server: 20.05 - 27.05 Class/Tier Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6 Tier 7 Tier 8 Tier 9 Tier 10 BB 41,7 % 39,8 % 36,9 % 42,8 % 49,6 % 59,7 % 45,3 % 42,5 % CA/CL 43,1 % 32,6 % 36,2 % 38,3 % 28,4 % 24,8 % 26,2 % 27,3 % DD 15,2 % 16,7 % 17,4 % 12,3 % 15,6 % 12,2 % 23,7 % 27,6 % CV 0,0 % 11,0 % 9,4 % 6,5 % 6,3 % 3,3 % 4,8 % 2,5 % Total 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 % 100,0 %

As far as I can tell, the tier 10 is based on the L2 design, but with different superstructure and funnel (looking at the drawing, two separate funnels is not too far-fetched) layout. I'm not certain of the validity of this source (first page for drawings/data, last page for speculation), so a history buff will need to confirm:

It's certainly visually appealing. The gameplay looks interesting so I might look into the game when it is released. My point was that every time someone states a thing becoming a WoWs/WoT-killer, they are usually wrong. In this case, I can say that they are definitely wrong. But hey, Ubisoft will have stronk servers and good optimisation, so there's always a slim chance .

And WarThunder Naval Battles will also be a WoWs-killer. Much like Ground Forces was to WoT... It's even a different genre/setting, so I fail to see the relevance to be honest.

Noticed ThinderChief on the enemy team. It didn't go so well for his side: Omaha OP, pls nerf!

He isn't harassing anyone, just voicing his opinion. Calm down.

I'll only add to the above that reasoned arguments will often (or rather, should) be taken seriously, even when they come from a statistically bad player. Why? Because he/she has taken the effort of analysing his/her situation/observation and come up with a possible explanation. Note that it's better to have some degree of humility and ask a question instead of presenting something as a fact. For instance: I find smoke to be OP at lower tiers because I cannot counter it reliably. How do you deal with this issue? Here, you can clearly see that the player is missing the tools to deal with smoke in the most straightforward manner (radar/hydro), so more elaborate tactics must be suggested. However, if a player is only posting said observations as a fact and thus is confident that everyone else is wrong (Dunning and Kruger would be pleased), the response will be fairly negative. Example: smoke (alternatively, replace with a ship) is OP! It is impossible to counter and should be removed from the game! The natural response to this is to point out that the player has no clue about the issue at all. Using stats is the best way to do this. Dr. Dunning and Dr. Kruger would be proud.

I see removal of consumables and A++ grade AP and HE shells as possible balancing changes to be honest. As it is now, they seem to have a tad too much of everything. Though, looking at the high-tier RN cruisers and Belfast, maybe that is the British national flavour...

I'm sorry, but it is a bit hard to take you seriously when a server build has been obtained by gamemodels3d. Yes, it may be an older version of the current one at ST/pre-ST, but it at least gives an indication of what the developers are thinking. In any case, you wouldn't be able to confirm the stats even if they are 100% correct, so your only options are to say that they are false/inaccurate or not comment on the issue at all . EDIT: Jeebus, those spelling errors.

Yeah, who wants to have a balanced game that works on the Free-to-play-model anyway? It's not like we need a healthy player base or anything... And if you suck at the game and have no insight in balance, you don't get to complain either. It's fun when you add arbitrary (though in my case, I have a point) conditions for discussion participation. Work on your reading skills:

Maybe they will play other classes instead of going for the "easymode" ships? Battleships right now have the problem that they are too easy and forgiving to play compared to the impact they have on battles. Destroyers also have a high impact on domination games, but they are considerably harder to play well (we're not talking about the long-range torp spammers that do not pressure the enemy here).