Kartoffelmos

One would think that the trolls would have learned as well. After all, this would result in more fuss:

Freeeedoooom!* (Not from EU, but from Brexit )

I've heard that in 0.5.9.5.0, ships on fire will have to make a magazine detonation roll every second until the fire is extinguished. Needless to say, my cruisers are looking forward to it .

How come when I finally get WoT-unicum status in another WG game, the bar is raised even higher? Also, win rate is luck and pedobearing in Umikaze is the best way to enjoy the game. As for the question, if you hit a depleted section or an isolated module, you will deal zero damage. Zero-damage AA-gun crits are the best kind of crits.

Gremyashchy with Khaba guns... Yeah, that seems just about right.

Izuma/Yamato have normalisation angles of 5,05/5,25 while the Murricans have 6,8. In any case, seems like the AP shells will perform similarly to those of Izumo and Montana, with some notable differences in normalisation and Krupp values (worse). Without accuracy (dispersion and distribution/sigma) values, we don't really know all that much, but it makes sense that the KM BBs have less firepower since they are supposedly going to have superior protection. Interesting. So if any changes happened (and not just visual representation), it should be between 0.2.7 and 0.30. Checked the US forums (they still have the CAT/CBT archives available) and the patch notes from those patches were only listed on the portal which now has been purged :<. Oh well.

Found an old video of an and there is a noteworthy difference between that version (version 0.2.3.78675, older than the introduction of Izumo and the rest of the changes to the IJN tech tree, see 0:53 in the video) and the current one: Old travel time values: New travel time values: Considering that the Amagi's HE shells are lighter, it makes sense that the difference is larger for the AP ones. Now, whether or not these differences come from modifications done to the shells themselves or the game mechanics, I do not know, but at least there is a difference. If they are caused by a change to the shell physics (for instance, gravity modifier), it is logical to assume that lighter shells have decreased in performance between the two versions. Unintentional_submarine, on 28 June 2016 - 03:55 PM, said: Nope. After seeing that NA thread I looked up the flight times in old early CBT videos compared to recent ones, and it is exactly the same, both for Cleveland and the other much complained about USN cruiser, Des Moines. Do you have a link to the thread? Would be interesting to see the dates involved in those comparisons.

According to the developers, the shell velocity has remained the same since closed alpha, but I seem to remember that a patch introduced/improved shell physics, resulting in the mass of the shells having a bigger impact on the behaviour at longer ranges. I'm not sure if my brain short-circuited and made all of this up (I do not think I mixed it up with the introduction of armour models, as that is an entirely different aspect of the game), so it would be nice if someone could confirm this (alternatively, schedule a brain specialist appointment for me). Too bad we cannot look up old CAT/CBT patch notes.

I always found the philosophy behind the Russian cruisers a bit annoying: as a trade-off for extremely good guns (shells, range, arcs), they are bigger and less manoeuvrable. However, since you're always staying at max range, you get more time to dodge shells, resulting in the disadvantages being minimised, while your guns are still effective against battleships (and/or cruisers that do not have the range to engage you). As such, as long as you're able to land your shells and read the mini-map you should do fine. Even the latter is not a strict requirement, since your superior effective range means that you can disable the minimap and still avoid getting into bad positions in most scenarios . Prime example: Hindenburg versus Moskva. Both have poor manoeuvrability (Moskva performs better for some reason...), bad concealment values and superior range, but the Moskva has better HE-shells, more hit points and a higher top speed, so what's the point of Hindenburg? Spamming AP? Moskva does that better due to heavier shells with a higher initial velocity. If CVs still were dominant, I would see the point of Hindenburg, but as it is now? More on-topic: The same goes for Molotov, but for different reasons. I mean, why on earth do you want to release a premium ship with a similar playstyle of the untested regular ships? If Budyonny get nerfed, we will still have a "very competitive" Molotov left. Completely on-topic: As for Cleveland, I'm not sure if she would do well at tier 8 (is this still planned or are the developers starting a office war to settle this issue?), simply due to the bad shell arcs. Maybe the higher RoF will make it harder to dodge the salvos but that will mean that most of your firepower will go to waste when you are carpet-shelling an enemy ship. Will be interesting to see how they plan to balance her. As for the current stats, are you sure it's not the KV-1S issue all over again? The KV-1S, although , had average overall stats due to it being a noob magnet. I'm not saying this is the case with Cleveland (I always preferred my versatile Aoba <3), but it is a thing to consider. Humm, this post grew longer than planned. I should avoid posting after drinking two cups of coffee, I guess .

Met Yoshi_EU in his Khaba today. The game loaded slowly, so I didn't want to write an awkwardly late greeting. Anyhow, we both did well, but because of my rustiness (additionally, I was extremely stressed about an Iowa that was after my citadels as well), I tried to citadel an enemy Roon with my Ibuki. Sadly, it didn't go very well and the game ended before I got a chance to HE-spam him to death, so no Kraken for me :<.

Because "it's a feature". On a more serious note, I think it's caused by the fact that the patches are being worked upon continuously and so a quick-fix is easier to implement alongside the existing features. Since 0.5.9 (probably) is still in the planning stages, I guess it is easier to do a larger change at that point in time.

Wait, what? As for the topic, I wonder when 0.5.8 will hit the live servers, considering the delay of 0.5.7 supposedly shouldn't affect the release date. Maybe we finally get an "updated" version of SA and smoke, since the changes to these were not mentioned in 0.5.7 nor 0.5.9 (as far as I know)?

He is right though; there is exactly one "traitor" in every single game he's in .

Judging by the responses in this topic, I propose that you have to pay the module costs whenever you demount or mount modules. After all, such an action is resource-consuming! As for the actual question, it's just a way to force people to spend silver with the added "bonus" of preventing hoarding when/if there is a camouflage discount. Not too big of a deal since you usually only use one pattern exclusively for most ships.

If only the same level of "consideration" was given when SA/smoke was "not changed"... Oh, come on now. Detonations are good for the game! You even receive an award for experiencing the overwhelming amount of fairness that the detonation represent!

A replay would be helpful as I/we cannot give you advice without knowing what you are (possibly) doing wrong. Are you sure you haven't changed the aiming crosshair (f.ex. from regular to dynamic) and thus "ruined" your usual way of aiming? At what ranges do you usually engage the enemy? Do you primarily go after enemy cruisers or do you focus on destroyers at said ranges? Have you taken a break from WoWs and as such your aiming is only rusty? (Have you hired your cat as the main operator of the mouse? ) So many possibilities!

The same goes for any of the other classes (well, CVs somewhat excluded since it is a bit hard to mess up your positioning in those). If you are out of position in a cruiser or a destroyer, you will get deleted if anyone can keep you spotted. Destroyers have smoke though, so they have it somewhat easier, but they are more vulnerable to carriers again. Use WASD-hax. In any case, the torpedoes are usually spotted by the destroyers and cruisers in front of you (not to mention aircraft) so even if you cannot be bothered to use your rudder, you usually have enough time to limit the damage.

What a nice way to balance the game. It certainly explains ships like the Imperator Nikolai I. On the other hand, it might make Pepsi somewhat competitive but I don't see how any of the other cruisers can get away with receiving the ability without other adjustments. I like it. KM BBs -> survivability, IJN BBs -> sniping and US BBs -> great AA and "jack of all trades" (well, on higher tiers at least).

Disgusting. You went for the defenceless strike setup (in a Ranger, the stronkerest CV in the game) and blame your mistake on the only cruiser in the game? You even have the audacity to write stuff like "stupid idiots" and "FOLLOW MY ORDERS TO THE LETTER" even though you should know better than to ask a Myoko for air cover or even use a strike Ranger in the first place. For everyone that cannot be bothered to watch the replay, here's a summary: *gets sniped by the enemy CV* Noob team! Hope you get banned!

I'm going to give txtspeak the benefit of the doubt and ask if you read the first post as well? The point was not that he/she was Polish, but rather that the post-battle ranting was written in a different language than the one used in said battle. It's like if I should suddenly start writing in Norwegian after this sentence. Det ville ikke ha vært veldig smart, ville det vel?

Rewards for dodging torps? -.-' Can we get rewards for putting out fires as well? Or even better, rewards for not receiving citadel/penetration damage in cruisers? Silly me, I thought not receiving damage was a reward in itself, but I guess the "straight-liners" need extra incentives to use their rudders.

The guns on that ship will be glorious: heavier shells than the ones used by the Russian/Soviet destroyers, but with slower initial velocity. I expect more damage, slower reload and somewhat similar arcs (HE shells having a velocity of 840 m/s with AP/SAP having "only" 800, but the shell weights roughly 20% more). I just hope (and that goes for the Italian designs too) that the ships will not be gimped in order to have a "unique national flavour".

Was hoping for some news about SA/visibility/detectability, but oh well. Good news (and work) nonetheless .

I see... [edited]

Do you think he can explain how his average win rate in battleships (average tier of 6,9) have increased for the past 30 days as well and not dropped by 8 %?