Kartoffelmos

I complained about it in the PT section, but didn't get any reply there. Fortunately, Tuccy had already commented on it in the comment section of the article: Since no one in their right mind () sails tier 10 ships without the detonation signal, this buff won't be very noteworthy (though it is very positive that they fix issues with the damage/ship models).

My build is the following: 1. Situational Awareness 2. Expert Marksman 3. Demolition Expert 4. Concealment Expert 5. Superintendent 6. Adrenaline Rush 7. Vigilance 8. Direction Center for Catapult Aircraft Vigilance and Adrenaline Rush can swap places, depending on preference. If you use Defensive Fire for self-defense purposes, you don't need to boost your AA-rating, as Zao's AA is rather weak to begin with. If you really want to do it, pick Manual AA instead of Vigilance and Direction Center.

Arguing about the very accurate and important Warship Today Rating...

Met Shaka_D in his Iowa while shamelessly boosting playing with my nubfriend friend CrySpy. He tested the buffed Tirpitz while I used the Kiev. I hadn't really tried the RU DDs after the split due to the captains being placed in the wrong ships (experienced captains in lower tiered ones and vice versa) and because I've been too lazy to fix it. I'm also a bit miffed that the modules didn't get researched when the Tashkent was up-tiered... Anyways, I didn't notice his name ingame and his Hakuryu team mate didn't leave me an opening to relax (or farm damage) either. After having capped one of the points and praying that a New Orleans would not use radar (my team chased him away <3), the carrier sent all three of his torpedo bombers after me. I managed to dodge the first two waves but the rubbish turning radius of the Kiev resulted in one hit from the last one. That carrier must've really hated me as he had to drop near a Neptune to reach me. Later in the game, he blind-dropped two torp strikes into my smoke and followed up with his dive bombers when I was forced to leave it. Luckily, I took minimal damage. I get that he would focus on my ship since we had two DDs to the enemy's one, but that was just overzealous! Sadly for Shaka, his Z-52 didn't seem all that keen on capping and his battleships/radar cruisers didn't play that well either so his side lost due to points. I'm not sure if I (or CrySpy) fired any shells at him that game, but I don't think so.

Doesn't change the fact that you use low-tier tactics (torpedo-yolo-rushing, etc.) to support your arguments. The fact that you claim that torpedoes (even launched from ~7 km range) are more reliable than battleship guns at 16 km range is laughable at best. Regarding the accuracy suggestion: giving the class with the most survivability more reliable guns is doomed to break the balance. Yes, they will be able to damage other battleships better, but that matters little to cruisers and destroyers which will be targeted first. Yes, it will punish bad aim harder, but for those of us who actually know how to aim, we will be able to reliably hit cruisers/destroyers and compensate for their evasive manoeuvres. As such, why should anyone play cruisers? If you increase the accuracy of battleships, what advantage does the cruisers have left?

Buy the Leningrad .

On the other hand: The ship may very well be distributed by the use of free XP. I fail to see how regular ships fall under this category (they can already be purchased with free XP) and this arrangement will also fulfil the other conditions: the ship won't be awarded in special events and it won't be sold in the conventional sense. Rather, it will be earned by playing the game. However, this assumes that ranked battles are included in the category of special events and that free XP-purchases do not count as a part of the economy, so it all depends on the context/translation.

Bad timing... I have no idea what they were thinking (well, I have a suspicion) when they released Belfast but to answer your question: the best counter to a (smoked-up) Belfast is another Belfast. That, or torping the smoke cloud between radar waves.

As for the actual thread, I just had a game in my Amagi where I consistently was the closest battleship to the enemy (until I died after being forced back). The rest of the battleships on my team were all camping at max range. The funny part? They were all German brawlers...

A part of me want to create a thread in order to promote these "approved mods" just to point out the idiocy of the entire thing...

Welp, I just uploaded a replay of my Bismarck double-citadel'ing a smoked-up Kutuzov. Will I be blacklisted from the community now? Can't say that I agree with this new policy. What happened to the "approved mods only" rule?

I met T0by in my Amagi, got focused by the entire enemy team while my team rushed to the map border, we lost. The end. The teams today has been absolutely appalling.

Say that we have a random cruiser that for some reason "waste" an AP salvo at a destroyer. What is more likely: that the destroyer is close enough for the AP shells to hit the hull or that the destroyer is far enough away that the shells hit the deck armour? I mean, why would you have AP loaded if you don't have a suitable target and if you do have a suitable target, why waste AP on a destroyer that is far away? Again, in close-range combat (where the priority should be on the destroyer and not the aforementioned target), this buff makes no difference. The only cruisers that might "struggle" is the German ones, but that depends on whether or not the HE buffs changes the playstyle. Moreover, HE still is the preferential ammo choice when dealing with destroyers even with these ships, no? I might be wrong, as I've been procrastinating the grind due to the errr... boring low-tiers. If the change only affects two ships (as was mentioned), the above is moot anyway as you won't notice the difference anyway as those two ships will behave like the rest of the destroyers... The only ones really benefiting from this change is battelships: the thicker armour results in their shells reaching the fuse activation threshold more easily.

There is a difference between being calm and being apathetic .

I still don't understand the obsession with Charles Martel. It brought nothing that another cruiser (or a different combination of cruisers) couldn't do better. Maybe the speed and range advantage was the deciding factor, but neither of those were really utilised during the games.

#BlameOM #BlameGermany Also: Throw Throw Throw

Lalanta and Des Memes disagree.

Texas, since I won that in a container sometime (Christmas containers, I think?). The unique perks help with the slow turret rotation of lower tier US BBs, so it is a good match. Unfortunately, I have to listen to the voice-over .

"BBs everywhere ruining the game experience - when removed?" Your topic is equally silly as a topic with the above title.

If you want to use the captain on Bismarck, I suggest the following order: Tier 1: Preventive Maintenance Tier 2: Expert Marksman Tier 3: Superintendent Tier 4: Advanced Firing Training + Manual Firing Control for Secondary Armament (in that order). Remeber to also boost your secondaries with the ship upgrade. After that, you can either add Concealment Expert and one tier 1 skill of choice or Basic Firing Training and Adrenaline Rush. The latter is probably better, but it depends on your playstyle. I am pretty much visible at all times and find Bismarck's stock concealment to be good enough for the early/late-game engagements so I will not get the concealment perk. For the battleship below level 8, I've found that it's better to focus on the survivability than on the secondaries. Gneisenau/Scharnhorst have torpedoes they can use in close quarters and the secondaries of the rest do not have the base range to make it worthwhile. As such, take Concealment Expert and then Vigilance and Adrenaline Rush. The rest is not really that important, but Jack of All Trades and High Alert should be considered. EDIT: Advanced Firing Training/Manual AA can be viable for boosting (both the secondaries and) the AA, so I guess that is also an option.

Comrades, I have solution! How about we stop buffing BBs with every patch? Good suggestion, da? I would not be surprised if they "needed" to buff Izumo and reduce Yamato's citadel (after all, it is as large as Montana's, although with better protection) in the next patch . One a more unrelated note, I like how the developers suggested to tweak smoke so that battleships couldn't camp in it (a long time ago), but removed stealth-fire instead. After all, one simply does not tweak mechanics so that they hurt battleships. At least it appears to be that way... Stealth-torping? More like smoke-shooting/torping!

Since most of your arguments apply to cruisers as well, shouldn't they also have their citadels lowered?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Do you really want the answer to that? Not only have you failed to analyse the statistical data of Hood's performance correctly (using the wrong site (only registered users contribute to the stats), not realising that it is too early to draw conclusions from the stats, failing to realise that you cannot judge whether or not one ship is better than another based on stats only when the ships are of different tiers, etc.), you also seem ignorant of how price elasticity works. Supply versus demand? Yes,you can say that Wargaming is artificially limiting the supply by increasing the price while also creating more demand with the usage of missions/events, but that's not the reason for the bundle tactic. By selling the same ship in differently priced bundles (with enough time between the various releases), they "exploit" more customer segments. If they have sold it for 36 Euros from the beginning, they would have ignored all the players who were willing to pay more to get the ship. Since we are not talking about sales here (catering to the customer group that wouldn't normally buy the product but become interested once they can make a bargain), the demand is actually the same. Troll is successful, I suppose...

Please post a replay of yourself taking 5+ torpedoes and surviving while sailing a destroyer and I won't consider your argument as utter garbage. As for the actual topic, please make battleships immune to citadel damage as well. Having a battleship sink because of only 4-5 AP shells is preposterous!