Kartoffelmos

Oh? Are you prepared to have one of the other aspects adjusted as well (longer gun reload, less hit points, much worse AA, worse turning radius/top speed)? Because that is what needs to be done if this rumour happens to be true. The Iowa isn't particularly weak at the moment, so I fail to see why the Missouri should be a blatant upgrade.

Sorry for dragging this out, but I have no issues with them being wrong (as you said, the information is under NDA), what I dislike is that they have no form for quality control (or very little of it) in the form of source criticism and/or using secondary sources to validate the information. Yes, it might be hard to find such sources, but what's the point of having a news/information/leak site if a lot of said leaks are inaccurate/downright false and/or taken from questionable sources? The fact that they have backtracked to hide their "mistakes" (removing inaccurate/false information that has been posted prior to the opposite being confirmed) in order to appear more credible speaks volumes about their work ethics. In any case, that's only my personal opinion (which is quite unfortunate, because I used to visit the site regularly but nowadays I exclusively use the local news thread on these very forums due to the reasons above). Regarding the Missouri, even if they are correct (~400k free XP instead of 800k), the price is far too steep for my liking. If I had US battleships as well as more "available/converted" free XP (sitting at 170k at the moment and that's saying something), maybe I would be tempted to use doubloons but not with a price like that. On the other hand, I'm biased precisely because I do not have US battleships so my opinion is barely relevant. On the other hand, the tier of the ships works against such a possibility since handing out tier 9 ships to inexperienced players will in most cases be disastrous due to the fact that the ships have a statistically better chance of being top tier compared to regular tier 8 premiums. Being a battleship as well makes it even worse in that regard.

Maybe I'm too late to the party with this (probably am, but will post this regardless ). Judging by the stats, the German DD-line appears to be very similar in playstyle to the Blyskawica; mediocre concealment rating, decent speed (35-37 knots, scaling with tier) and trading some gun performance (slower velocity, but heavier shells) for much better torpedoes. They seem to be getting rather decent AA as well (and Hydro for tier 6 and above). Gun performance: Nation Velocity, m/s Weight, kg Damage, HE (fire chance) Damage, AP Poland 900 24 1700 (8 %) 2200 Germany (t5 and above) 830 28 1500 (6-7 %) 3000 USA 792 24,5 1800 (5 %) 2100 Some ships also get the option to use 150 mm guns, but I'm unsure if the lack of AFT is worth the "upgrade". Considering that the tier X doesn't have this option, you would also need separate (or retraining to maximise the efficiency) captains as well. In any case, it all depends on whether or not the the 128 mm guns are good enough to benefit from AFT which sadly is hard to tell due to the hidden drag coefficients... Personally, I am looking forward to the line (doesn't hurt that most of the ships are "aesthetically pleasing" as well).

Really? As for the datamined information, of course it's accurate since it shamelessly copied from gamemodels3d... The fact is that TAP has been wrong on multiple occasions and has a shady track record with regards to listing and crediting sources. Now, for the insider in the article in question, I'm not criticising the lack of names or identification, I'm criticising the fact that the exact quote from the insider hasn't been posted but rather a summary/transcription. This is rather poor practice credibility-wise and since the article also questions the validity of the information ("Either fake or not..."), I have to question the credibility of both the insider and thus the article itself.

I don't usually do this, but The Armored Patrol being credible? The site doesn't even give a direct quote and even question the credibility of the "insider" in the article itself. On top of that, even if we assume that the section is a direct quote, it's obvious by the wording that the person in question is not a WG employee...

Divide that by four and you get the real torpedo damage. For some reason, gamemodels3d uses torpedo launcher damage in stead of single torpedo damage (Zao has 59,6k "torp damage" for instance). In any case, I like how DD are supposed to still be OP, even though we currently have too many battleships sailing around...

#Make Battleships great again!

But... but... What about voice actor suggestions?

Met ColonelPete in my Aoba (alongside Bagel), but I couldn't citadel his Molotov for some reason (was a rubbish game in general to be honest). Also:

You got it all wrong! We need smaller maps so that we can sail to the map borders more quickly!

BAGEL FORKING PLS! I took a double surprise typhoon torpedo bomber to the face, yet I still ended up on the first (second?) place in my Fuso, I think. Was fun seeing our Atlanta just obliterating all the remaining planes though

Well played, though I feel that the Belfast really is too good at countering destroyers. You really cannot dodge Belfast's radar like you can with the other radar cruisers.

I blame Dropsiq and his OP (in his words at least, haven't played with/against it yet) Fiji. I was only sailing my trusty Aoba and setting fires everywhere! (Sorry, couldn't help myself)Yes, it was a fun game. I was doing so well, nuking two destroyers and capping C at Shards. After I had sunk the second destroyer, with a dynamic and engaging gameplay element, I might add, I decided to head into the centre cap. When I was almost there, I ran into one of your division mates in his/her Belfast. Needless to say, I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for your meddling OP prem-cruiser! Seriously, what genius thought it was a good idea to give a cruiser better stealth radius than radar radius? It's not like the Belfast needed it to begin with as she's practically (gameplay-wise at least) a Flint with radar now...

Not really all that interesting news (yet, at least) although... This was their solution to the BB heavy meta that they have mentioned on numerous occasions (even after the mod was known)? The mod is mostly useless on both IJN and USN CAs since they need the camouflage in order to avoid getting detected prematurely (and then deleted), but it should benefit Hindenburg. On the other hand, it's a massive buff to a certain long-range spammer with poor handling and one particular top-tier destroyer which also remains visible for most of the games. How convenient... As for the armour and firing angles, will that really make any difference for the overall balance? If they do not want to do anything to the cruisers themselves, how about "adjusting" the battleships in a similar manner as they "adjusted" IJN destroyers? Eventually changing carriers so that they punish battleships more and other classes less? Personally, I could deal with the torpedo soup and I can, for the most part, deal with the abundance of battleships, but the way these two issues were/are handled differently is extremely annoying.

Congratulations WG: not only do you ignore the community when it comes to information, you managed to cheap out on servers as well... Game is nearly unplayable when you get the oh-so-fun continuous 40-800 ms roller coaster of lag for entire matches.

I'm just going to write this for comparison: Artillery is fair and balanced. I take it that most of you will figure out why detonations are bad for gameplay in the same manner as why artillery is bad for gameplay (in WoT). As for the "just use flags"-crowd, are you seriously saying that detonations should be a part of the game even though you are encouraged to remove them for a limited time yourself? I mean, why would we get a countermeasure if it is such an extremely positive feature? If the only thing that keeps the feature alive is "historical accuracy", then I could list at least ten other things that were more prevalent in battles but aren't in the game despite the historical accuracy. I wonder why...

I like how this went from "carrier economy is broken" to "carriers are OP" (yet again)... In any case, you can start complaining about carriers in your battleships when and only when you cannot delete a cruiser with a single salvo. I mean, carriers are supposed to counter battleships in the same manner as battleships counter cruisers, right?

How about a more detailed patch log for the next tests? I think I'm not the first one (I have stated it before if you really want to check ) to say that it's downright silly to ask people to test certain changes when said changes are not publicly known. I mean, why should anyone play carriers (on a larger scale, that is) on the test server if there aren't anything new with them?

Jupp. Initially this seems to be the case. I can also confirm that all XP modifiers (camouflage, account and XP-flags) count towards the mission so if you are grinding ships with everything you have, the third crate shouldn't be that hard to get. Since I don't use premium account, I would need 23 871 XP with both the XP flag and my trusty alpha flag (). With first win and such, this should be doable in 12-15 games, but I doubt that I will try to do that every day (or rather, I'm certain that I won't). Anyhow, the two (more credit) crates I got today were rather "unlucky": the first one gave me 50k credits, 3x "Hydro II" and 3x "-10%-repair-flag" and the next one gave me 50k credits, 3x "anti-detonation-flag" (finally you can get it without suffering or using your wallet) and 3x "Camouflage type I". If you ask me, this beats three daily missions, especially if you consider that you can get something similar (or even better) every day. Hell, even if you only play once every three days, I believe it's better than the dailies because you can choose your reward; either you pick credits which seems to be comparable to 3 daily missions or you pick signals/consumables if you have a greater need for those instead. EDIT:

Well, you can get one crate a day, which will be more than enough to replace the usual daily mission. EDIT: Oh? So you are guaranteed to be able to fulfil all three missions? >:3 In any case, the crates (at least two of them) might be worth more than three missions. Will post some results later.

I thought that was obvious, though maybe I was a bit ambiguous in my wording . I think it's more of a notion that they are unique in some way. As we've had 3 (4?) iterations of the cruisers already, I think they're afraid to state a singular unique feature that they currently DO HAVE, as that might change when/if there's a new iteration. Oh come on now, you have enough flags/credits! If you open enough crates, you might even get a Gremlin!

On the test server, you need 2k XP, 12,5k XP and 37k (?) XP to get all three. You can only get three each day and all XP modifiers count apparently. EDIT: Here's a nice picture:

Oh well... So much for a Mogami buff... Though, without the better firing-concealment, why would I even use the 155 mm guns with the top hull? The turrets are far too slow to be usable when you are constantly being spotted.