mtm78

Was about to say this, if I want my guns to turn into a direction while I'm also steering ( evading ) something I usually just get that bearing hit ctrl+x and then concentrate on my steering. Right mouse button works as well but it's easier to accidentally let go, ctrl-x is the safest option imo.

Thank you for saving me the time to check his profile @The OP...

There is also an official TS server -> http://worldofwarships.eu/en/cbt/news/ it's on the right side of the page if you're logged in. Though mostly the English channels where pretty empty, when there are people there they are mostly very well informed ( alpha / ST ) and friendly people. Ow, and the other language section probably has those people as well

That is because it's easier to defensively coordinate then offensively, and mostly because of the AA mechanics which just stack the aura's from all in range ships together so a CV suffers from coordinated gameplay quicker then a BB gains / looses from it ( depending on the enemy team exploiting the lack of coordination ). So how would the game promote coordinated play?

Ever heard of a learning curve?

Sorry, if you get instakilled by an AI DD in co-op, you either been unlucky or you lack situational awareness. I, once, got instakilled by a torp spread from a DD in co-op. I was pretty intoxicated and I didn't even notice the DD before I died to his torps. Did it indicate torps are a problem, or was it related to my inability to recognize the situation and act accordingly? Wrong example mate, sorry. I agree that it feels wrong if a DD could solo a BB, given equal captain skills. But when the skills are evenly distributed, sorry no that doesn't carry much weight.

Did she ( the ship ) ever took part in SAIL Amsterdam? I think she did and if it was her I been aboard her, was impressive

Depends, in PVE I got a pretty gud wr I agree on the attacker - defender type, I have far more defense then cap points and that's because my mindset is more focused on preventing the enemy team from winning ( and thus enabling the rest of my team to win the game for me ).

I loved my T-50-2 And yeah like I said, I'm not a game developer and I fully understand your fear. I don't have the answer, I can only say what I would like. And I'm not sure I would like a small player base naval simulator with terrible queue times for bigger ships, in fact I am quite sure I don't. I would like a middle ground somewhere though, and I think WG is going for it it's just very hard to implement. There is a rock-paper-scissors concept, and would really like that to be a good part of the game as it encourages/promotes team work and I want a team based game ( yes even in randoms... silly me ).

To be fair I heard it turns like a whale, but on the other hand I might have heard that from you

It's not so much just preconception, as it's based on real life expectancy ;)

Those are your Bismarck papers, do you have something which shows those numbers but from ships already implemented in the game ( and tested using same methodology )? If you do it can be used to extrapolate likely dispersion, if it's possible to match the numbers of implemented ships with WG's in game dispersion.

Would help for the plebs like me if you included some comparison material from other ships in the game so it's perhaps possible to correlate the data and see if/how WG's listed dispersion matches the data. That could then be used to extrapolate likely in game dispersion for Bismarck?

Yeah I was actually feeling really humble, I got near half of his battles and not close to half his unlocked ships. Now I purposely didn't power grind, I even still got my St Louis for instance and my Cleveland and I don't only play the ships I need to 'grind'. But still, if you unlocked all those ships with double my battles.. well that clearly shows that I'm either really scrubby or he is really good. Anyway, I think that means a speed run should be doable in ... mhm 1500 battles? You up for it, Aerroon?

Then make a point of that and try to get it so air superiority is beneficial... The problem I know is not in the CV players themselves but in how CV's play. It's WG's implementation which makes them so one sided.

Can I haz one to? I play lotz of carrierz and I am vely gud in them, stronkerest player EU 4sure! /sarcasm

Well, semi applicable I guess so here... Ow and..

I remember the map, I never waited for the chopper as it was usually pointless ;) The historical battles reference is true and relevant, but also not entirely applicable. In WoT, if you where in a Matilda in some battles you basically didn't have to fear only another Matilda or tanks with derp guns. In WoWs the difference between ship classes is less then in WoT ( for some tier's, as WoT has some very unbalanced tanks depending on the MM they end up in ). The class balance should NOT be that 3 DD's no matter what they do can't kill a single full health BB, far from it. Even one DD if played by a skillful enough player facing an incompetent one should walk away with a victory. And two good DD's should be able to kill a BB with a mediocre captain, while 3 mediocre DD's should be able to kill a competent BB ( or something along those lines, it's a rough idea not worked out in any way ). But an equal skilled DD captain vs an equal skilled BB captain should only be able to win if the BB captain makes a huge mistake, and not because a single DD has some game mechanism which enables it to beat BB's 1V1 on a regular basis. This example is just to illustrate train of thought, it's not directly applicable to the current game off course. Edit: btw, if you think SPG's where so bad, don't you think people would stop queuing up with them? They didn't, not really because of in game performance but also economical one's. Top tier spg's lost far less money due to repairs and when in a decent matchup got a lot of damage ( = credits ), that is why they where so popular.

Picture not showing

Which of the three proposed versions? Can't be 1, that is wood. Version II -> Don't think something called a bergship would match that model of yours? Could be variant III though which would be the most viable anyway ( smaller, and faster! ).

I'm all for realism and all but why you asking for historical documents when RN has Warspite with 16km range? You really think realism is a deciding factor in ship balancing? ( ow boy, this might bite me in the [edited]in some other threads for sure ).. Now I am not saying you shouldn't continue to discuss and maybe even influence the dev's slightly in favor of making Bismarck a stronk sheep, I will buy hey first day she is in the store trust me. But I am not sure you're on the right path with 'historically inaccurate'. As you edited: with accuracy and penetration values the DPM could be negated anyway. Why don't you wait until you get more information ( solid info ) before discussing very preliminary statistics? On the other hand, I was quite happy you found out how WG calculates ROF, did you verify this with more then just two ships though?

That reminds me of Mythbusters -> They replaced the wood pulp with newspapers, worked well ( for a short time ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk doesn't list any images, and that image you posted isn't of that project. It would be impossible to model a ship so closely, it would likely more resemble an iceberg then a ship ( a flattened iceberg with a landing strip ). 600.000 crew afaik