mtm78

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_the_Medway -> Laughs as well.... edit: damn ninja'd

They better be prepared to give me back my money then...... same goes for Sims, Blys and anything else I bought which might be able to do so.

Thank you..... RN CL's other then Belfast have an even lower speed threshold. Now IF people want to argue it's a BUG, please do the same testing as above shown while getting other results. If the behavior is CONSISTENT and REPEATABLE, it's not a 'BUG'. Not that I will argue it's not highly ffin annoying, if this is how the developers think it should work and it consistently behaves in the same way, it's 'not a bug, but a feature' So at least call it how it is, and THEN get the pitchforks out for wanting to change the 'feature' into something less... 'unintuitive' edit: actually what Allied_Winter has said comes pretty close already

Show us your profile.

Repairing using the launcher did not work?

Try repairing your client with the game launcher, go to options and check file integrity. This should fix any issues with scripts.zip ( or try placing back the backup you possibly made before using the installer ).

17 planes max in Belfast.... not bad for a CL without defensive fire.

How do you know, which ships you got in which you can actually invisi fire....

Removal of AFT affected all ships and doesn't qualify as a nerf to premiums but a global change to gameplay mechanics.

Except so does he and he does it really well.............

I turned them off in audio settings ;)

But this is exactly why I feel you can't replace concealment with other methods as they will all resolve on RNG. You can't shoot what you can't see, that IS bad in 1v1 situations but as been said this isn't a 1v1 game. If you made DD which are now capable off invisifire and make them visible, shooting them will be RNG based and not skill based. And besides that, I actually feel that enforcing some level of teamplay by having ships capable of invisi fire is a good thing. Without this necessity everyone would always play like it's a free for all. I would like this to but it will never happen. Battlestations pacific is more your title if you want that level of realism.

Kirov is the epitome of a glass cannon, much like Molotov a tier higher. I citadeled Fuso's with her from 12km if they showed broadside. And yes, it IS the perfect example of an AP centered cruiser, that is if you're engaging other cruisers. Against an angled BB, HE is still the way to go. And while you have more potato BB's on tier 5 then higher tiers, most BB's won't keep sailing broadside after your first two salvo's. I didn't like Kirov tbh, I did when I was testing her but when she went live and everyone realized how potent her damage output was they all focused the Kirov's from the get go. Maybe this has dwindled down due to influx of new players who don't bother with proper target prioritizing.

Yeah I know, that's why I stopped playing Imperator when they changed MM so I can't use it to bully tier 6 BB's with her I don't like playing my Zao that much, the gameplay is not as fluid on the top tiers. Shimakaze is not what was in CBT so I got no urge to take that out of port at all, and my Yamato will only be played in division as it's to dependent on team support with it's 72s turret rotation. But when I had 12xx games I atleast had a tier X, and was close to getting my second.

That blah blah would actually be a point of interest if you didn't have a 15% win rate on that Kirov..... So any claims that you're playing it 'as it should be played' go right down the drain And EVERY ca can already shoot AP at broadside superstructure of BB's, and when good players have a fire or two running they will switch to AP because it has a higher alpha damage and it can't be healed back fully. You talk about ship roles but fail to actually perform while 'playing in your role'. You seem to forget that people play games to enjoy themselves, and most people I know don't enjoy games in which they underperform. You call people lazy for not picking a Kirov and playing like you, with 15% win rate in it. Yet you fail to realize people don't want 15% win rate, it's not fun to be performing so badly. You talk about landing 'deck shots' with HE and starting fires that way, while for deck shots you need to be around max range ( due to shot trajectory ). If you're close then max range you can not land deck shots so you shoot/aim at the superstructure ( where not only you can start fires, but you can also deal damage with HE ). While shooting the 'sides' of a BB with cruiser / destroyer HE will not do damage due to the armor negating it all. People are playing from smoke and from behind islands because lolpen BB's vs cruiser armor isn't a match. Back in CBT cruisers could actually angle even against most BB's, this is no longer a feasible approach. If WG would listen to you, BB's would be even more overpowered than they are now. Which would be ok for you, as you state that it fits history since 'no cruiser could melt down a BB'. Yet you never reply to remarks about how historically BB's would not stand a chance versus carriers, which is showing how unbiased you are. You call the XP/credits earned by those who play like they should ( avoiding 15% win rate in their Kirov's ) 'undeserved' as the 'spent no effort'. The only thing you're doing in this thread is insulting people who don't agree with you, and disregarding any factual argument they provide pointing out your flawed reasoning. You even accuse me of 'stalking', and call me a troll. It's beyond pathetic the way you think you can have a discussion. I might use the 'BBaby' term pretty often, but I will ALWAYS go into specifics and actually contextually debate any issue presented which is accompanied with solidified factual argumentation. That is the difference between you and me. You just insult everyone who doesn't agree with you. I could say more about what I think about you as a person, but I don't think this forum is the place for that. So let's limit it to the actual content which should take place in this thread -> FP is a crutch, it's not needed but it won't break the game immediately. In the long run, as WG has already stated months ago that BB's were starting to become a problem ( and this was BEFORE the German BB's were released mind you... ), this will mess up with class balance even more. Even your proposal, of increasing HE damage for lower fire chance, is going to work against you. Since if you total the damage done by CA's to BB's and put the fire damage part into the raw HE damage, this damage becomes reliable, unlike fires. And BB's would die even quicker, not slower. Unless, and that is pretty clear from your statements about how ahistorical it is for cruisers to beat BB's, you mean to buff raw HE damage a tiny bit which would mean cruisers would just not be able to reliable damage battleships at all. Because yes, you can score nice damage with AP on a broadside BB, but no good BB would just give this to a cruiser. All the time this BB can still wreck any cruiser in a single salvo. Now again, if you try to refute this, please try to do so without attacking the person but by countering the arguments.

That's more a case of the CA needing a buff in concealment ( base concealment ) so it can't be invisifired on with a Blys. Btw I don't have CE on my Blys so stealth kiting CA's is not that easy... possible but not easy. But yeah everyone knows the Pepsi could use some loving <3

That is also true. Google translate isn't exactly providing comprehensive reading material edit: I guess I also missed him posting the translator link..

Right click on name -> ignore messages?

TAP never lists the original source, that would reveal they never have original content and would lower the amount of people generating traffic/income for our dear Sebastian

You claimed you wanted more historical performance, that includes the fact that there were multiple dozens of DD's for each single BB. You can't have one without the other, it's called clear and obvious bias. Which is clear already from your failure to offer any refutal to actual arguments as well as your hidden profile.

Nope. But I hear that some people have gotten permanent chat bans by now so that might make you feel a little better? Also, there is a chat filter. People who circumvent the chat filter are more harshly punished afaik then those who 'just swear'. My 9y old son has an account, sadly he kind of lost interest in the game as he found it pretty hard ( he wanted to be 'as good as daddy' ), but yeah for him I would disable chat in game. On the other hand, he plays all kind of games on his steam account and the chat there is actually way worse then what we have in WoWs. Most of the times chat is not that bad, it's certainly not even close to being as bad as it were in WoT when I still played that.

Then we should also limit the amount of BB's per game to 2 and give all the DD's ten respawns per game. Deal?