Kartoffelmos

Battleships and carriers will most likely use the same drydock.

I know it has been mentioned but... You know , Jon Snow:And this isn't even the worst version. There was an even more obnoxious one that was longer in duration.

[Citation needed] No, we have too many battleships ingame as it is, which is why this buff is a mystery to me, especially since both N.Cal and Iowa are fine as they are right now.

There are two things that I find amusing with this buff: Izumo becoming even more of a sad panda Buffing battleships is obviously the first step in bringing down their numbers Good thing they're nerfing the König to compensate... it will obviously even things out!

Obviously hax. It's not like you can be extremely unlucky and/or meeting people that will adjust their course every X seconds or so. On a less snarky note, if they are spotted and cannot see any ships (SA-icon popping up), they will of course change their course. Personally, I will sail a short distance in my cruisers before doing so in order to either spot the DD or to throw off their aim.

Well, the layout does have a couple of advantages: Less space-demanding, resulting in smaller citadels (which you now can protect better without adding more weight) Ammo storage/handling rooms would be brought closer together (less potentially wasted space between these rooms) Decent firing angles for all turrets (compromise) compared to a combination of rear turrets and front turrets The "slow" turret traverse was not a problem in reality as the ships were (much) slower in comparison. As for weight/space optimisation, take a look at the Cleveland below. Without much extra hassle (huge simplification there ), you can cram one extra turret between the two at the front:

Then I will bring my t4 Belfast Iwaki Alpha and kemp smoke! Seems like WoWs is doing alright based on revenue according to the latest information (if it is accurate). I guess the "failed" NA region (and limited popularity in SEA) is partly to blame for the low-ish worldwide player base.

Your suggestion is bad, because it simplifies the game (making it more dependable on RNG than actual player skill, since you have less tools at your disposal and thus most engagements will be solved with simple firefights), removes strategical and/or tactical aspects of the game (again, less opportunities) and as usual, benefits a certain class (which needs to become less popular according to the developers) more than any other. Now, you could argue that the removal of hydro makes torps more deadly, but this will affect the other classes more, as they are closer to the enemy. Naturally, carriers are excluded from the above, but they will in turn be more deadly versus destroyers. Also: Pot, kettle, colour and all that jazz.

From the NA article: Why this was changed/omitted in the EU version, I have no idea. I initially thought that I had read the exact same thing in our version as well when I read through it yesterday (or the day before), but it seems that I was mistaken. WG logic™.

I got 250 anti-detonation flags from one of the containers so it's sad to see the feature go, especially for something as "useful" as the new "upgrades".

The rifling doesn't change anything, as the problem is caused by the ship's movement. In other words, the shell, guns and everything else on the ship is moving at the same velocity as the ship. One comparison is that if you jump from a speeding train/car/whatever, you will still retain the velocity of said vehicle (no matter if you are spinning or not). As such, in theory and excluding air resistance, the ships will be part of the same reference system and you will have to aim as if they were standing still (courtesy of the laws of Newton). However, the air will in reality (depending of the distances involved, of course) affect the shell. It was mentioned a velocity of 15 m/s above, which means that you can view the problem as stationary with 15 m/s side wind (or headwind, depending on the positioning). The game does not take this into account and you will always have to lead your shots.

Global data since the launch of the game might be one explanation, but I find the site's filters to be lacking as well. For instance, warships.today have these numbers for the two carriers: All-time stats (compared to wows-numbers): Carrier Battles Win rate Hakuryu 119677 (117235) 53,33 (48,18) Midway 102365 (100576) 48,52 (43,65) Another explanation is that wows-numbers also include co-op battles but I seriously doubt that so many tier X CV players play and lose in that game mode. Last two weeks: Carrier Battles Win rate Hakuryu 6871 53,73 Midway 5863 46,80 Another reason for the "weird" numbers is the small player base for these ships. In any case, maplesyrup is the best site for collecting data, but I was too lazy to use it in this instance .

A trash thread from a trash player regarding "this trash game". How fitting.

Haven't played the Leander yet, but regarding the guns: Leander has an 8-barrel broadside compared to Emerald's 6 Leander's shells have a slower initial velocity (841 vs. 936 m/s) but they are heavier (50,8 vs. 45,36 kg) and thus have a better penetration (krupp value of 2609 vs. 2045) and will perform better at longer ranges because of it Leander's shells also deal slightly more damage (3100 vs. 3000) So despite having worse performance regarding shell travel time on shorter ranges, Leander will outperform Emerald by far at longer ranges due to the heavier shells. The Leander might also be better at lobbing shells over islands as well, but since I haven't played her yet (stopped grinding the Emerald when the convoy missions were revealed and got the Leander some days ago), I cannot say for sure.

While sailing in my Myoko alongside CrySpy in his Schors and Bagel in his Yorck, we met dasCKD in his Tashkent, who didn't believe me when I wrote that it is a decent ship now. Anyway, it was a tier IX game on Shatter (domination) where the enemy ignored one cap and tried to push through the centre. Naturally, they were forced out (due to torps and the overal vulnerable nature of the position) which meant that we could cap it back and focus on defending it for the rest of the game. I'm glad that superior tactics prevailed! Saiedly, I wunly niid dee pre-mum artcount and ee um no noo pleyer, så ju meeuuste weeeit a bitt långr.

Finished the missions today. Sadly, I do not own a Derpitz so no achievement for me :<.

Sadly, that was just one of many teams that refused to play properly today. A common theme was going for the shitty capture zones or ignoring the caps altogether, unfortunately. In that particular game, I tried to recap the centre but without any (decent) support, it was doomed to fail.

I (in Fuso) met Tyrendian (Amagi) whilst divisioning with Bagel (Warspite or Arizona, cannot remember). Bagel was greedy and ate all the poipois before Tyrendian taught him a lesson in moderation. I then had the avenge the greedy b*****d, but my victory was short-lived since an enemy Tirpitz decided that no fun was allowed :<. I can't believe how bad his team was though. Despite our DDs refusal to cap, they did not seize the initiative. Some of that can be attributed to the fact that one of their destroyers was nuked by our carrier, but still... I think we all ended up on the top of the leaderboard on our respective teams, so it was a decent game at least. Was fun spamming the chat though .

The sad part is that you don't realise that you act exactly the same as the "noob team"-crowd. So much for herd mentality... As for the rest, it must be fun simplifying reality so that you always can group people together instead of comprehending more nuanced situations. Not sure if I even should be surprised, considering that you in one thread wanted "skillbased matchmaking" and in another heavily implied that WG's matchmaker punish good players by putting them in harder games if they win a lot. Oh well, maybe you should stop hitting your face so you can avoid further damage?

Well, every "World of..." title needs a source of salt, so why is a small salt mine so surprising?

Then stop bringing it up. I know that you didn't "start the argument", but you keep referring to realistic behaviour as it should be considered (instead of purely balancing reasons). If you feel that it is silly that some ships won't be spotted at a distance of 7-8 km, maybe you should also consider how WoWs has implemented the scaling of ships and distances and complain about that instead. The rest wasn't aimed at you. So much for misinformed opinions and reading comprehensions... If you also had read the first part of my post, you would (and perhaps should) have noticed that I mentioned balancing battleships before removing stealth shooting, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to repeat that. Oh well.

Not much apparently, as people who use stealth shooting actually choose the right moments to strike. If you do not have enough information, chances are that you will be spotted by enemy destroyers/cruisers that are between you and the target and you'll remain visible for 20 seconds. This is not a situation you want to be in, no matter if we're talking about a destroyer or a cruiser. As such, whenever I open fire in my cruisers, I angle my ships away from the enemy when I feel that I have an understanding of the situation. If I do not get spotted, well... fire away it is. See all the earlier replies regarding realism and stop using it as an argument as it is unreasonable to only use it about one aspect of the game while excluding everything else. The fact is that battleships are simply too strong right now and nerfing a defence/damage strategy (applies differently for the two relevant classes) that helps cruisers and destroyers to deal with the issue will worsen the problem. Fix the more pressing matter first and then stealth shooting can be removed/balanced, not before. Now, the reason why most are complaining about the stealth shooting in the first place (not referring to terrain/smoke "abuse" as it appears to be some confusion about what stealth shooting is, for some reason), is simply because they have come in a situation where their ship is alone or far away from allies. Apart from certain extreme scenarios, cruisers won't be farmed by destroyers in such a manner, so I will focus on battleships. First of all, if a battleship is in that position, they have failed to both support and get support from friendly ships and should be punished for it. One could argue that it should be impossible for a cruiser to be able to annoy a battleship in this manner, but the only ship that is capable of doing so reliably (1vs.1) is Zao and I fail to see why an entire mechanic should be reworked just for one ship. Even then, with proper captain perks, Zao will struggle to remain invisible while also getting all guns on target. If we're talking about destroyers, battleships should be countered by destroyers so there is no issue here. Second of all, in lategame, cruisers need a second ship (except from special cases) in order to have a visual of the battleship without getting spotted themselves (for destroyers, see the point above). As such, you need two ships to pull it off. Is it not fair that you get outplayed by two ships cooperating? If two destroyers cross-drop a cruiser or use the"smoke and spotter"-combination, should they not be rewarded for their teamplay? Yes, you'll need teamwork to counter it, but you also need teamwork to counter destroyers, smoke, carrier planes (to a much lesser degree now). If that is not enough, I can merely ask, how do cruisers counter citadel damage from a battleship (unspotted) when said cruiser engages other targets? If stealth shooting doesn't have an acceptable counter, then neither does such citadel damage...

Shimakaze confirmed as the most famous IJN ship. Then she got nerfed and people stopped playing her because they all suddenly started to read history books and found out about the Yamato. In some cases, this is true, but for the class as a whole? I think not.

Nah, we just don't buy that cheap reasoning as they have nerfed Concealment Expert in the past to make "invisible firing" harder. If it truly was unintentional, they would have removed it back then instead of waiting until after they nerfed carriers (i'm not talking about the first re-balance here), IJN destroyers and RU destroyers... which coincidentally all are ships that were problematic to face in a battleship. I mean, it is not like they admitted some time ago that battleships had too high survivability and that there are too many of them, so why shouldn't they nerf fires and fire chance as well as remove stealth shooting? I cannot possibly imagine what the result will be.