Widar_Thule

I do not agree. I bought the GRAF ZEPPELIN on release since I know quite a lot about the real ship and expected Wargaming to give this technically quite unique ship a fair representation in WOWS based on excellent authoritative studies such as in the superb book "Flugzeugträger Graf Zeppelin" by "Ulrich H.J. Israel". The GRAF ZEPPELIN ship that I got from Wargaming for a price which is far more than that excellent book is really disgustingly bad, almost totally useless and completely unauthentic. Everybody can make mistakes people can get over this company making a mistake AS LONG AS THEY ADMIT THE MISTAKE AND FIX THE ISSUE THEIR PAYING CUSTOMERS OBVIOUSLY EXPERIENCE. But not admitting to existence of the obvious Elephant in the room mistake and then making matters worse by releasing statements full of lies about it and then firing people for speaking their mind is a Stalinist and politically correct approach to things. What you should have done is fire the person who decided to release GRAF ZEPPELIN and fire the person responsible for putting untried and untested AP Bombs with 6+ seconds delay on this expensive premium ship. Do not kill the messenger, address the message. Wargaming management should show some style and moral courage instead of this Stalinist politically correct "shut up everything is fine" approach. Wargaming management should make the morally right decision instead, since the damage is already quite clearly done and the GRAF ZEPPELIN is objectively speaking an Aircraft Carrier with a very weak aircraft complement in WOWS making it an expensive piece of junk. Hell Wargaming did not even get the top speed of GRAF ZEPPELIN right, making her much slower in WOWS than she would have been in 1943. And that for a ship with a 200,000 horsepower power plant which was the most powerful on any ship built in Europe for all of WW2... No words can change that the ships is both unauthentic in WOWS and it is also useless versus the ships it will have to fight. So Wargaming Management do not come with more excuses, or with more lies. You are not fooling anyone other than yourself. As a result of this GRAF ZEPPELIN WOWS debacle I will not spend a single cent on your company. I have bought six premium ships among other things up till now and I am most likely not the only paying customer to act like this. Unless I see some real attitude change you will not see a penny from me on anything. So, Wargaming management, admit the mistake, apologize for it, make fixing the ship top priority over other projects to for once show your customers that you are not money hungry cheats who do not give a damn about your customers. And finally buy the excellent authoritative book "Flugzeugträger Graf Zeppelin" by "Ulrich H.J. Israel" and change the Carrier to her scheduled authentic Air Component and technical capabilities as listed in that book as a first measure. If any of your staff have problems understanding anything in that book then contact me I will be glad to help you guys sort out this mess and unlike you I will not even ask money for it. But for heaven's sake Wargame management show some normal human decency and civility in this matter.

A focus on dive bombers for GRAF ZEPPELIN is totally unauthentic by 1943 making clear that WOWS developers have NOT done their homework on GRAF ZEPPELIN, since the actual command decisions of both the German Navy Commander in Chief and the German Armed Forces Commander in Chief categorically stated that torpedo bombers were THE main armament of the GRAF ZEPPELIN. By 1943 the days of the dive bomber were coming to an end and especially so concerning doing critical damage to capital ships. This was quite clear in the German military in 1942. The WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN has the ship itself in a 1943 configuration and the air component of the ship in a 1939 configuration. This is totally unauthentic and plain wrong and makes clear they did their homework on the ship very poorly. There is NO NEED for FANTASY Air Component setups for GRAF ZEPPELIN since we have the data on what she would have had in 1943, which had long since been decided, ordered, planned and was being designed and constructed from 1942 onwards. There were two moments in time where GRAF ZEPPELIN was to have been commissioned: - Commission date number one: 13 March 1940. This did not happen because Grand Admiral Raeder the Commander in Chief of the German Navy on 02 October 1939 ordered completion of GRAF ZEPPELIN to halt even though she was 85% complete. She was to work up (=train) her crew for about a year and would be ready for operations within 12 months, so in March 1941 at the latest. In 1940-1941 GRAF ZEPPELIN was planned and ordered to have Ju 87 C dive bombers, Me 109 T fighters and arguably maybe Fi 167 multi-purpose aircraft (to be used as a torpedo bomber, reconnaissance aircraft and smoke laying aircraft). The Gernan Navy liked the Fi 167 but the German Air Force seems to have preferred a multi-purpose version of the Ju 87 C instead as the more modern and capable aircraft. - Commission date number two: 1 April 1943. This did not happen because Raeder's successor Grand Admiral Dönitz on 02 February 1943 ordered completion of GRAF ZEPPELIN to halt even though she was by then 95% complete. Hitler ordered on 13 May 1942 that GRAF ZEPPELIN was to be completed but Raeder did not actually let work on the ship start again until 05 December 1942. Completion of GRAF ZEPPELIN had started again on 05 December 1942 and lasted until 02 February 1943 by which time it was clear that she would be completed on 1 April 1943 at the latest. She was to work up (=train) her crew from April 1943 till the end of 1943 and would be ready for operations at the end of 1943 at the earliest and the Spring of 1944 at the latest. In 1942 it was planned and ordered that GRAF ZEPPELIN in 1943 was to have 54x Junkers Ju 87 E Mehrzweckflugzeuge (Multi-Purpose-Aircraft) and 39x Me 155 A Jagdflugzeuge (Fighter-Aircraft). In September 1939 when GRAF ZEPPELIN was about 85 % complete her "Carrier-Wing 186" (Trägergeschwader 186, TG 186 for short) was already fully formed consisting of one "Carrier-Group" (I. Trägergruppe/186 T) with 3x dive bomber squadrons, and one "Carrier-Group" (II. Trägergruppe/186 T) with 3x fighter squadrons, on 1 October 1939 the "Carrier-Wing 186" had: - 39 x Junkers Ju 87 B-1, C-0, C-1 Sturzkampfflugzeuge (Stuka, Dive-Combat-Aircraft) - 39 x Messerschmitt Me 109 E-3, E-4, T-0, T-1 Jagdflugzeuge (Fighter-Aircraft) However by 1942 these aircraft types had become obsolete and the GRAF ZEPPELIN was to be equipped differently when she was to be commissioned in 1943. In fact in 1942 the German Air Force categorically stated that they REFUSED to build the 1939-era Fieseler Fi 167, Messerschmitt Me 109 T and Junkers Ju 87 C Carrier Aircraft because they were too outdated by 1942. The German Air Force was in charge of aircraft design, production and the establishment of military aircraft units. The GRAF ZEPPELIN belonged to the German War Navy but her aircraft to the German Air Force, so as far as GRAF ZEPPELIN aircraft were concerned the German Air Force had the final word. The head of the German War Navy (Erich Raeder) and the German President and Prime Minister who was also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (Adolf Hitler) had both determined and actually ORDERED in 1942 that the main armament of the GRAF ZEPPELIN would be torpedo bombers when GRAF ZEPPELIN was scheduled to be commissioned in April 1943. The new Mehrzweckflugzeug (Multi-Purpose-Aircraft) Ju 87 E was the naval version of the Ju 87 D-5 and it would perform four roles for GRAF ZEPPELIN: (long range) reconnaissance, torpedo bombing, dive bombing and smoke laying (with a special smoke laying device system). In fact in two meetings in early 1942 both Raeder and Hitler categorically stated that the GRAF ZEPPELIN would be USELESS without torpedo bombers and so as a result the German Air Force in 1942 created and thoroughly tested a torpedo system for the Ju 87 D-5 for use on both the German Aircraft Carriers and for land based anti-shipping Ju-87 torpedo bombers. The actual air component that both the German Navy (Kriegsmarine) and German Air Force really ORDERED in 1942 for the GRAF ZEPPELIN to be equipped with in 1943: - 54x Junkers Ju 87 (they were to be naval versions of the Ju 87 D-5 and this version was called Ju 87 E) - 39x Messerschmitt Me 109 (they were to be naval versions of the Me 109 G-6 and this version went through several name changes in 1942 such as Me 109 ST, Me 409 and finally Me 155 A. The Me 155 A is not to be confused with the high altitude fighter Me 155 B and the high altitude fighter BV 155 which were totally unrelated and different aircraft designs). So in 1942 a total of 93 aircraft were planned and ordered for the GRAF ZEPPELIN which she would have had been equipped with in 1943. The 54x Junkers Ju 87 E Mehrzweckflugzeuge (Multi-Purpose-Aircraft) were to be organized in 4x Mehrzweckstaffel (Multi-Purpose-Squadrons) and the 39x Me 155 A Jagdflugzeuge (Fighter-Aircraft) were to be organized in 3x Jagdstaffel (Fighter-Squadrons). In July 1942 the German Air Force scheduled the total production up till 1943 for the Ju 87 E and Me 155 A to be 220 aircraft, which included aircraft for training and reserve units as well as for four Auxiliary Aircraft Carriers (Hilfsflugzeugträger). That data comes from the "Seekriegsleitung" War Diary (the Skl, Sea War Command, headed by the Commander in Chief of the German Navy, Grand Admiral Raeder) and from the archives of the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (the RLM, the Reich Air Ministry which was in charge of all German aircraft design, production as well as the setup of the air component of GRAF ZEPPELIN). Having 93 aircraft for GRAF ZEPPELIN makes perfect sense when you look at the two Hanger Decks of GRAF ZEPPELIN. The GRAF ZEPPELIN was by any standards a very large Aircraft Carrier (262.5 meters long, 31.5 meters wide, displacement of 33,550 tons). In fact GRAF ZEPPELIN was easily the largest purpose designed and built aircraft carrier in the world up till 1942 and arguably even up till the end of the war in 1945. The LEXINGTON, SARATOGA, AKAGI and KAGA were also very large Aircraft Carriers, but they were not purpose designed and built as Aircraft Carriers like GRAF ZEPPELIN was, instead they were converted Battle Cruisers except for KAGA which was a converted Battleship. The 33.550 tons GRAF ZEPPELIN had two Hanger Decks with these dimensions: - Upper Hanger Deck: about 6.5 meters high, about 15.5 meters wide, about 185 meters long. - Lower Hanger Deck: about 6.5 meters high, about 15.5 meters wide, about 170 meters long. Note: Some sources state a width of 16 meters for the Upper and Lower Hanger Deck and a length of 172 meters for the Lower Hanger Deck. Taking the most conservative figures that gives the following minimum square meters of Hanger Deck space for GRAF ZEPPELIN: - Upper Hanger Deck: 15.5 meters width x 185 meters long = 2876.5 square meters - Lower Hanger Deck: 15.5 meters width x 170 meters long = 2638 square meters In total GRAF ZEPPELIN had a minimum of 5515 square meters of Hanger Deck space divided over two Hanger Decks. To put this into perspective: LEXINGTON when built in 1927 had these Hanger Deck dimensions: - Hanger Deck: minimum height about 6.4 meters high, about 20.7 meters wide, about 129.2 meters long. That gives LEXINGTON the following minimum square meters of Hanger Deck space: - Hanger Deck: 20.7 meters width x 129.2 meters long = 2674.44 square meters The YORKTOWN-class USA Aircraft Carriers when built in 1937 had these Hanger Deck dimensions: - Hanger Deck: minimum height about 5.25 meters high, about 19.2 meters wide, about 166.42 meters long. That gives the YORKTOWN-class the following minimum square meters of Hanger Deck space: - Hanger Deck: 19.2 meters width x 166.42 meters long = 3195.26 square meters. So: - LEXINGTON and SARATOGA (36,000 tons each, both being the largest USA WW2 Carriers) had only 2674 square meters of hanger deck space and one single Hanger Deck. - ENTERPRISE (25,500 tons, one of three YORKTOWN Class Carriers) had only 3195 square meters of hanger deck space and only one single Hanger Deck. In other words GRAF ZEPPELIN had more than DOUBLE the hanger space of LEXINGTON and SARATOGA. And ENTERPRISE (YORKTOWN Class) had only 58% of the Hanger Deck space of GRAF ZEPPELIN. Source for all this: THE MUST READ and BEST single source professional "all-aspects study" 1994 book on GRAF ZEPPELIN, written by the former Fregattenkapitän and authoritative expert naval author ULRICH ISRAEL. Unfortunately the book is only available in German but there is NO single other source which comes close to studying all GRAF ZEPPELIN related primary source design, development and actual command decision documentation which even goes so far to include contact with the designers of the ship and with the Air Force Aviators of the fully formed "Carrier-Wing 186" which was fully established and trained for GRAF ZEPPELIN in 1939. From the way Wargaming implemented the GRAF ZEPPELIN it becomes clear that they very BADLY did their homework on this ship and they are almost totally clueless on the actual technical peculiarities, design, command decisions, capabilities, equipment state, various planned aircraft load outs of the ship from 1935 to 1943. The GRAF ZEPPELIN incorporated many technical novelties which were not introduced in British and USA Carriers until well after WW2 (such as compressed air catapults). When you implement ships like IZUMO or MONTANA in WOWS you do not put 30 cm guns on them because that would be unauthentic. That holds true for GRAF ZEPPELIN as well, in 1943 she would have had naval versions of the Me 109 G-6 (called Me 155 A) and the Ju 87 D-5 (called Ju 87 E). The Me 109 T and Ju 87 C were 1939-era aircraft which would NEVER had been used from 1943 onwards on GRAF ZEPPELIN as is quite clear from all command decision taken in 1942 by the Commanders in Chief of the German Armed Forces, the German War Navy and the German Air Force. And it is equally clear from the documentation study of ULRICH ISRAEL that torpedo bombers would be the MAIN ARMAMENT versus ships for GRAF ZEPPELIN in 1943. WOWS and Ulrich Israel's GRAF ZEPPELIN study It is safe to assume that the WOWS developers have access to the German OKM archival material which was purloined by the USSR in 1945 and copied and studied by them well into the 1950s. It is therefore safe to assume that the German OKM archival material is used by WOWS developers to construct the 3-D models of German warships in WOWS. The blueprints of those German ships only contain part of the history of these ships however and in the case of GRAF ZEPPELIN the composition of the Air Component of the ship is something which cannot be readily determined from studying Blue Prints. And that is where the book by Ulrich Israel becomes a key source since it contains many details on that aspect. As a result the data in Ulrich Israel's book is a must consult source for anyone interested in GRAF ZEPPELIN and it should also be for WOWS developers who are trying to represent the ship in WOWS. As such I advise the WOWS developers to GET A COPY OF THE BOOK "Flugzeugträger Graf Zeppelin" by "Ulrich H.J. Israel" and incorporate the data from that book into the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN in order to represent her in an AUTHENTIC manner. This is especially important because the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN could not be farther removed from what the real GRAF ZEPPELIN would have been capable of and equipped with in 1943.

The GRAF ZEPPELIN also represents another disturbing trend... The GRAF ZEPPELIN AP bombs are supposed to counter slow moving battleships and they should not be able to hit fast moving agile targets according to several WG representatives statements. So GRAF ZEPPELIN AP bombs are intended to be useful against slow moving or stationary battleships but not against fast moving and turning cruisers and destroyers. WG representatives also said they took the GRAF ZEPPELIN torpedoes away because they were "too effective" against destroyers. So apparently GRAF ZEPPELIN should not be able to fight against destroyers, that is supposedly a reason for taking the GRAF ZEPPELIN torpedoes away. IF the GRAF ZEPPELIN AP bombs would work, which they do not, then it is still a bad concept since it is a one-trick-pony weapon system. Which means they are not very good against anything else. In the case of GRAF ZEPPELIN the AP bombs are really bad to the point of useless against destroyers and even against cruisers. The deep dive/running torpedoes again are meant to target battleships with a deep draught and those deep running torpedoes are the ones that GRAF ZEPPELIN maybe will get in the future according to WG representatives statements. But here is the thing... I do NOT want a ship that can fight ONLY one enemy ship class well, because in a match I need to be able to at least have a fighting chance against all ship classes because I can be pursued by any ship class in a match and in a random match I cannot count on anybody for "help" and neither do I want to or be FORCED to do so in a game. Every ship should have at least a decent all round armament capability against all ship classes because a player cannot determine which opponent ship class will pursue him in a match. If I have a ship I want it to be able to decently fire on EVERY type of target with a chance to doing enough damage to make the all ship classes approach with caution. I can accept that a ship has a "speciality" which allows above average performance against ONE ship class specifically but it is totally unacceptable that in return that would mean that the ship would be ONLY good against one ship class specifically. In other words, if GRAF ZEPPELIN is better against battleships than that is fine but it is NOT fine if that means that her armament is almost useless against anything other than a battleship. You cannot dictate what enemy focuses on you in a match. Sometimes you NEED to be able to fight off whatever is near you or chasing you down in an Aircraft Carrier even if that is a destroyer or cruiser. No one-trick-pony ships please... You do not have to be a genius to understand that all-round capable concept. Being all round capable is part of having fun in a match against four classes of ships. I hope that Wargame Developers will let that sink in because the direction they are taking now is headed for one-trick-pony solutions for their new WOWS ships.

This statement on the AP bombs from WG. That is too funny or painful depending on your point of view... First WG introduces an untested concept, AP bombs with a 6+ seconds time delay, on a real world money costing ship which cost 50-100 real world currency. Anyone who has used these AP bombers in just four matches with GRAF ZEPPELIN can easily see it just does not give any constantly reproducible hit and damage effect. And thus you are a disadvantage in your GOLD PREMIUM ship versus the TRIED AND TESTED torpedo bombers which WOWS has had since launch a few years ago. Spend 10 minutes on the test server with GRAF ZEPPELIN against target ships makes even more painfully clear just how utterly random the hit and damage of 6+ seconds delay AP bombs are at best against stationary ships. So what will Wargaming do to "fix" this? They will introduce another new and untested concept, "deep dive/running" torpedoes. So suppose these new "wonder" torpedoes are just as bad as the new concept "wonder" AP bombs with their 6+ second time delay? Then GRAF ZEPPELIN will then have a choice of useless 6+ second delay AP bombs AND useless deep dive/running torpedoes. It just keeps getting better! Just stack new untried stuff on more new untried stuff and put them on PREMIUM ships, the most expensive ones preferably. Right, that is smart. Nothing wins customer hearts more than making their real world money ships inferior to silver ships. What you SHOULD do at WG is use TRIED and TESTED weapons on a PREMIUM ship costing 50 to 100 real world currency. TRIED AND TESTED. Not "new concept" untried 6+ second delay AP Bombs or the untried and untested upcoming deep dive/running torpedoes. What then if you at WG want to test 6+ second delay AP bombs? Sure go ahead do it on a SILVER ship... go right ahead. Give them to SHOKAKU or LEXINGTON. But NOT to a new 50 to 100 real world currency PREMIUM ship. If they work on SHOKAKU or LEXINGTON, then take them away from the SILVER ships and put them on gold ships like ENTERPRISE and GRAF ZEPPELIN if you want. But do NOT test new concepts on new expensive PREMIUM ships. And what if you people at WG want to test deep dive/running torpedoes? Sure go ahead but again do it on a SILVER ship... Give PREMIUM ships TRIED AND TESTED weapons, that means torpedoes, shells and bombs which have been used in WOWS for at least 12 months. Experiment with SILVER ships but not GOLD ships... Again so it sinks in there at WG: experiment all you like, but do it with SILVER ships and NOT with PREMIUM GOLD ships.

It is not 1 April yet... And even if it is a joke, I would not be surprised that the joke part is the sigma 2.0 value, I mean why not sigma 3.0 for a USSR battleship/battlecruiser? "IMPERATOR NIKOLAI I" has sigma 2.0 so "KRONSTADT" should be significantly more accurate being a USSR ship compared to an old Czarist Russia battleship. And why stop at 30 cm guns, when 38 cm or larger can be mounted on this ship as well? We have to think bigger! Come to think of it USSR battleships and especially battlecruisers should AT LEAST be able to keep up with USSR destroyers in WOWS, so why not 42.5 knots top speed for "KRONSTADT" so that she can sail in formation with Tier 8 destroyer "KIEW"? We might be on to something really, really good here.

I hope you are right, because otherwise the only Tier 5 to 9 battleship which is not mortally dangerous to "HOOD's" deck armour with IFHE at any angle and at any range in WOWS will be Tier 6 "DUNKERQUE". At Tier 7 to 9 all battleships can penetrate 76mm of deck armour with IFHE...

If one looks at this link containing datamined IFHE penetration values: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/5ordcb/datamined_list_of_ifhe_penetration_changes/ Specifically looking at this: C = can pen 19/25/32mm (Examples: YYN = can pen 19 and 25mm, YYY = can pen 19 25 and 32mm) Name shell: 380 mm Spr.Gr. L/4.6 Alpha damage: 4400 Base Penetration: 95.00 mm IFHE Penetration: 123.50 mm C: YYY IFHE C: YYY Ships: "GNEISENAU", "BISMARCK", "TIRPITZ" and compares that with the leaked "HOOD" data: Armored deck - 51mm – 76mm then "BISMARCK" can easily penetrate "HOOD's" deck armour at any angle. In fact, if one looks at the IFHE penetration values on that reddit link, most battleships can penetrate "HOOD's" deck armour with IFHE in WOWS. To sum it up, the only battleships which CANNOT penetrate "HOOD's" deck armour with IFHE are: - Tier 2 - "MIKASA" (Japan) - Tier 3 - "KAWACHI" (Japan) - Tier 3 - "SOUTH CAROLINA" (USA) - Tier 3 - "IMPERATOR NIKOLAI I" (Russia) - Tier 4 - "ISHIZUCHI" (Japan) - Tier 4 - "WYOMING" (USA) - Tier 4 - "ARKANSAS beta" (USA) - Tier 6 - "DUNKERQUE" (France)

Well according to the Sea Group site, some more data has been leaked, it remains to be seen if this is going to be the way "HOOD" will perform in WOWS. https://sea-group.org/?p=2586&lang=en (the text underneath comes from that site, with some textual corrections/additions made here and there) "Compared to "WARSPITE's" Mk1 38cm guns, "HOOD's" Mk2 38cm guns only obtain an extra 0.5 degrees per second in gun turret traverse speed. But "HOOD's" AP projectile penetration performs better, it won't ricochet until 55 degrees (with a possibility to bounce) / 70 degree (auto-bounce). "HOOD's" AAA 178mm rocket launchers only have 1.5 km firing range, but due to their calibre they benefit from the buff which is applicable to large calibre anti-aircraft artillery guns and air defence (commander etc.) skills. "HOOD's" damage control party, which is a general Battleship's damage control party active for 15 seconds (120 seconds cool down), is different from "WARSPITE's" damage control party active for 5 seconds (90 seconds cool down); "HOOD's" Repair party consumable is also a general one (healing 0.5% of maximum hit points per second), which means it cannot act like "WARSPITE's" repair party that can recover extra HP (healing 0.6% of maximum hit points per second). "HOOD" has no torpedoes in the game. "HOOD's" armour in the game its actual thickness and description values are not consistent, the earlier made core area protection 80mm-350mm statement we had made now seems to have been clearly wrong; currently "HOOD's" armour protection is between 51mm-305mm." 0.6.4 British Royal Navy Tier 7 Premium Battleship "HOOD" Hull Hit Points - 67700 Armored deck - 51mm – 76mm Citadel protection - 51mm – 305mm Torpedo damage reduction - 16% Maximum speed - (Section) 32 knots Turning Radius - 910 m Rudder shift time - 14.43 seconds Surface detectability - 16.2 km Aerial detectability - 13.86 km Consumable 1 - Damage control (Battleship) Consumable 2 - Repair Party Consumable 3 - Defensive AAA Main Guns 381mm/42 Mk2 Layout - 4×2 (AB-XY turrets) Reload Time - 30 seconds 180 ° rotating speed - 60 seconds Sector of fire - ± 150 ° (degrees) Firing range - 17.57 km σ (sigma) - 1.8 381mm HE Mk VIIIb Damage - 5300 Muzzle velocity - 731.5 m/s Chance of starting a Fire - 34% 381mm AP Mk XXIIb Damage - 11400 Muzzle velocity - 731.5 m/s Penetration @ 5 km - 512 mm Penetration @ 10 km - 417 mm Penetration @ 15 km - 340 mm Secondary Guns 102mm/45 QF Mk XIX (High Angle) Layout - 7x2 Reload Time - 3 seconds HE damage - 1500 Chance of starting a Fire - 6% Firing Range - 5 km AAA Defense 102mm/45 QF Mk XIX (High Angle)Layout - 7x2Average damage per second - 66Firing Range - 5 km 40mm Vickers 2-PDR. Mk VII ("Pom-Pom") Layout - 3x8Average damage per second - 60Firing Range - 2.5 km 178mm spray gun (rocket launcher) (Naval Wire Barrage, Unrotating Projectile (UP) Rocket Launcher) Layout - 5x20Average damage per second - 50Firing Range - 1.5 km 12mm anti-aircraft machine gun (Vickers) Layout - 4x4Average damage per second - 8Firing Range - 1.2 km

According to the website the Armored Patrol (https://thearmoredpatrol.com/category/world-of-warships/) there will soon be a new cruiser in WOWS: Italian Tier 6 Premium Cruiser Duca d’Aosta. This is nice, to finally have an Italian warship in WOWS, which in 2017 will purportedly be also joined by the fine Italian battleship "Roma". But that is not what this topic is about. One thing triggered me from the description of Duca d'Aosta: Consumables(3rd slot) Repair Team So there we have it. Another Premium Cruiser with the Repair Party Consumable, allowing the ship to regain vital Hit Points. This is nice to have on a ship which will presumably cost around 20 Euros. We have the following Premium Cruisers with the Repair Party Consumable, I might forget to mention one, but here we go: - "Graf Spee" (Germany, Tier 6) - "Duca d'Aosta" (Italy, Tier 6) (Edit: corrected, she does not or will not have it, according to "The Armored Patrol") - "Belfast" (Great Britain, Tier 7) (Edit: corrected, she does not have it (yet?), but British Tier 8 Edinburgh does have an enhanced Repair Party Consumable) - "Atago" (Japan, Tier 8) Next to that we have regular line Cruisers and even Destroyers (USSR ones, of course) with the Repair Party Consumable: - All British cruisers from Tier 3 to Tier 10 - USSR destroyers at Tier 9 and Tier 10 - All Tier 9 and 10 cruisers in WOWS (including the upcoming French cruisers) There is however one important ship missing in the list of Repair Party Consumable (Premium) cruisers which incidentally is the most expensive heavy cruiser in the game: the Tier 8 heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" which costs 41 Euros rounded up. If one goes over to: https://eu.warships.today/vehicles And selects Tier 8 Cruisers and looks at the stats of the last 2 weeks, then the Tier 7 heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" is: - the worst in survivability - the worst in damage inflicted - in the bottom two in kill/death ratio - in the bottom two in average kills - in the bottom three in win rate - in the bottom four in experience (XP) The only category in WOWS where "Prinz Eugen" does fairly well is in plane kills, although even in that category she is beaten by and quite a bit below the USSR Premium cruiser Tier 8 "Mikhail Kutuzow". The real world "Prinz Eugen" was easily the largest heavy cruiser (19,042 tons!) of WW2 and, looking at her total equipment suite, by far the heavy cruiser with the highest level of technical sophistication. Late in the war the "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" were the ships equipped with the most advanced German naval radar which was second to no radar used on any allied warship. One particularly well placed torpedo in WW2 severely damaged part of the stern of the ship, but she still remained afloat and could be steered to safety. The plentiful gunnery of "Prinz Eugen" in the Baltic at the end of the war was crucially important for several military operations and demonstrably accurate. The ship and her crew was honourably mentioned twice by the government for her service. Next to that this rather unique heavy cruiser after WW2 survived two atomic bomb tests (!) in which she was involved. No ship of her class can lay claim to that. So there are enough historical reasons to give this unique and largest heavy cruiser of WW2 a decent treatment in WOWS. There really are no historical or even logical reasons to represent "Prinz Eugen" so badly as has been done in WOWS, and asking 41 Euros for her in WOWS in the poor condition WOWS has chosen to represent her borders on insanity. In WOWS the "Prinz Eugen" is not only the most expensive WOWS cruiser in Euros, it is also the least impressive cruiser to meet as an adversary in any tier 8, 9, 10 match. This is both from an historical and commercial point of view rather stupid. I for one am interested in buying the ship in WOWS, but the way she is presented in WOWS makes her such a "loser" that I cannot justify buying a bad ship like that for any price, let alone 41 Euros. Sure there are some people that bought her for "emotional" reasons, but that is fortunately an exception because I rarely see the ship in matches. No doubt many of the players which have a "Prinz Eugen" choose to leave her in port, where she looks great but that is about it. It appears that from time to time the good folks at WOWS seem to listen to what is written on the forum, but it appears that this is only the case when a lot of people "complain" about things, the more people virtually "shout" on the forum the more likely it is that people at WOWS sit up and take attention. And from what I see the English language part of the forum seems rather oblivious to the newly released German destroyers being generally mediocre/bad at best and the largest WW2 cruiser "Prinz Eugen" being not only really, really bad in WOWS but also the most expensive cruiser at a whopping 41 Euros, and that for inferiority incarnate. It is amazing how many forum "complaints" topics there were about the "Hydro Acoustics Search Equipment" consumable on "Bismarck", which in my opinion had no game changing effect on WOWS. In stark contrast to the really insignificant impact of that "Hydro Acoustics Search Equipment" consumable on "Bismarck", I have seen "Belfast" in action over the past few weeks and she indeed has quite an impact on matches from random to ranked. I have even seen matches with three "Belfasts" in a division, sailing together in a tight unit in formation, erasing everything in front of them with their combined fire and smoke screens making them virtually untouchable. The impact of the latest USSR destroyer changes (unnecessary "buffs" only really) and the latest added USSR destroyers is clearly for all to see far greater in both random and ranked matches, but this too does not gather much "complaining" on the forum. Not compared to all the "complaints" over the past few weeks on the English language forum about the "Hydro Acoustics Search Equipment" consumable on "Bismarck", this complaining however was eventually rewarded by WOWS by "nerfing" "Bismarck". "Belfast" and especially "Mikhail Kutuzow" have not and probably will never been "nerfed" however, no matter how good their in game performance stats are. It is easy to suspect that (British and other nationality) forum users are quite (and understandably) happy that "Belfast" is as clearly overpowered as she is, and that the English language forum users are by now so used to USSR ships over performing for their class that they no longer object to it. Maybe the English language forum users are also just as used to that as to German cruisers and destroyers in WOWS generally being generally presented as unremarkable, insignificant and under performing compared to their real world equivalents. That does not make it right or fair though. In like manner I pointed out in another topic about the growing inferiority of the Premium battleship "Tirpitz", of which the "last two weeks" stats can every month be regularly checked at: https://eu.warships.today/vehicles This Premium battleship in 2016 has suffered from successive "Tirpitz" specific "nerfs" to rudder response rate, (horizontal) armour thickness, accuracy (sigma value), torpedo attack angles, main gun range, main gun turret traverse speed etc. and only receiving few "buffs" in return which were not particular to her but were part of general battleship class "buffs". Other line and Premium battleships over the past year have seen important and successive "buffs" to their accuracy (sigma) which are indirect "nerfs" of "Tirpitz" because she was left out of these "buffs" that some of her key adversaries received. By regularly checking the "last two weeks" stats over a period of months on the https://eu.warships.today/vehicles site it becomes apparent that "Tirpitz" clearly is - compared to other Premium battleships - stat wise the worst performing Premium battleship and even the worst performing battleship in her Tier unlike other Premium battleships which are always the best performers in their Tiers. In fact "Tirpitz" is the only Premium battleship in WOWS which performs considerably worse than her line equivalent (in WOWS "Bismarck" has unjustly and unauthentically received longer ranged secondary and tertiary weaponry, has more accurate main guns and has better AAA and even more consumables compared to "Tirpitz") where in real life "Tirpitz" her equipment state, horizontal armour protection and general performance was superior to her older and smaller sister ship "Bismarck". And "Tirpitz" is also the only Premium battleship which is not displayed in her final wartime (1944) equipment state unlike ALL other Premium battleships in WOWS which are ALL displayed in their final wartime equipment state in WOWS. Instead "Tirpitz" is displayed in WOWS in her early wartime (1942) equipment state, making her even weaker by comparison to other (Premium) battleships which are ALL displayed in their final wartime (1944) equipment state. In real life a total of 26 (!) Allied air attacks were launched against the real world “Tirpitz” by well over 1,101 (!) Allied aircraft. No ship in history was attacked so many times and by so many aircraft in military history. Nor did any other ship in history sustain hits by "ship killer" 5.4 ton monster bombs and survive two such hits and several near misses which are at least just as dangerous if not more so due to shock waves etc. Those 1,101 Allied aircraft only managed to score about 21 hits on “Tirpitz” and even attacks by three allied aircraft carriers all at once could not sink "Tirpitz". The Allies admitted the loss of at least 37+ aircraft (no battleship in WW2 shot down more aircraft than "Tirpitz") to the generally solitary “Tirpitz”, whose AAA was severely handicapped because she could not even use her main AAA guns, the hard hitting long range 10.5 cm AAA guns, due to the Norwegian fjords/mountains blocking their field of fire while at anchor. In WOWS however the best AAA effectiveness and highest air attack survivability goes not to "Tirpitz" which deserves it due to her historical war record, but to USA battleships which never fought solitary and which never came close to demonstrating the resilience to air attacks of "Tirpitz" nor matched the effectiveness of her radar guided and computer controlled AAA armament in solitary combat. The newly released WOWS ship lines and Premium ships (USSR, British, USA) of the last six or so months are generally stronger/superior in performance stat and equipment wise (except for of course the "new" German destroyers), and other already existing older ships keep getting buffed (USSR destroyers etc.) without "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" enjoying the same "buff" benefit and instead being "left behind". The end effect is that both "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" keep getting worse stats and in game performance over the past few months. Apparently it does not have to be so for all ships however. Some are more equal than others it seems. Premium battleship "Missouri" for example is superior to line "Iowa" (her sister) in WOWS, not because her real life gun range, accuracy and equipment state was superior but because she is a Premium and WOWS chooses to display her as superior to "Iowa". But for "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" it is the other way round with these ships being displayed unhistorical and unjustly inferior in performance and stats and equipment wise in WOWS compared to their line equivalents in WOWS ("Bismarck" and "Admiral Hipper") as well as to other ships which could not match their size, armour, general level of high tech equipment suite. And those sorry inferior stats and under performance of the WOWS "Tirpitz" can be bought for 45+Euros making "Tirpitz" the most expensive Premium ship to date, which of course draws a comparison with the equally inferior stats and under performance of "Prinz Eugen" in WOWS for 41 Euros. If the good people at WOWS think that their upcoming Premium German aircraft carrier "Graf Zeppelin" is going to be a good seller if it gets the same bad treatment as the WOWS "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen", you better think again. Since we apparently do not have hundreds of people on the forum that "complain" about this sorry state of affairs, either because they have no in depth detailed knowledge of these historic ships, or maybe because they have no "emotional"/"national" investment in them, it seems to be OK for WOWS to display these ships in such a bad way. However, if a hundred people "complain", their numbers do not make them more "right" then when two or more people "complain". The weight of the arguments should be what counts for WOWS on the forum, not just the number of people selectively complaining for "emotional" or whatever reasons. I could just imagine the Russian language forum when the light cruiser "Mikhail Kutuzow" would have been presented as so utterly inept as heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" is in WOWS. Or how the British players would have reacted if the light cruiser "Belfast" would be as utterly inept as the heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen". Both "Mikhail Kutuzow" and "Belfast" are ships to be taken serious and therefore worth both the time to use them and thus buy them, and rightly so. It is more than a little strange however that both of the Premium light cruisers "Mikhail Kutuzow" (Tier 8) and "Belfast" (Tier 7) seriously outperform the Premium heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" (Tier 8) and Premium battleship "Tirpitz" (Tier 8) in all categories that matter. Let that sink in for a while, two Premium light cruisers (one USSR and one British) constantly and consistently seriously outperform the two most expensive Premium (German) heavy cruiser and battleship in WOWS in all categories that matter. And it does not end there, since USA Tier 9 Premium battleship "Missouri" also seriously outperforms the two expensive German premiums at Tier 8. Anybody that regularly checks the "two weeks" stats on https://eu.warships.today/vehicles can plainly see that, as well as witness it in WOWS in generally every match. The upcoming release of USA Tier 8 Premium battleship "Alabama" no doubt will further lead to and add to "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" falling back even further in the in game performance stats. When it comes to "Prinz Eugen", "Tirpitz" and generally the German cruisers and destroyers there seems to be no virtual "shouting" on the forum so things will apparently remain as they are, no matter how bad their stats and how inept/mediocre their in game performance is compared to their Tier and/or Premium equivalent ships in WOWS, which is clear for all to see who face them in a match. Since I have two 19 level German ship commanders I really have no use for a 41 Euro bad ship to "train" commanders, so that too is not a selling point for me. Since so many Premium Cruisers and even line destroyers and cruisers have the Repair Party Consumable there really is no excuse not to also give it to "Prinz Eugen", unless WOWS does not want to sell her of course. But even the Repair Party Consumable is not enough to make "Prinz Eugen" worth 41 Euros. "Mikhail Kutuzow", "Belfast" and "Atago" have a "bite", they can hit and hit hard in a match. That is what "Prinz Eugen" cannot, and which WOWS could easily implement like done for other Premiums. As is, even the inept WOWS "Admiral Hipper" is better than the WOWS "Prinz Eugen". When I meet a "Prinz Eugen" in a match on the opposing side, she is not dangerous at all, even more so when compared to say a "Mikhael Kutuzow", "Atago" and "Belfast". All three of those Premium ships, which all cost less than "Prinz Eugen" are "special", they bring something "special" to a match and are dangerous foes to be respected generally. Not so the WOWS "Prinz Eugen", it is even painfully clear in matches that the equally unimpressive WOWS "Admiral Hipper" is a better ship than the WOWS "Prinz Eugen". Instead of taking this unauthentic approach to historic warships, I advocate that WOWS would strive to represent historic ships an "authentic" treatment. To be sure, I do NOT mean a "simulator" or "realistic" approach, but an "authentic" one. For those that do not understand the difference: Authentic - "Conforming to an original and/or the real world so as to reproduce essential features". Simulator - "A computer simulation (or "sim") is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer under real world conditions". Realistic - "Resembling or simulating real life (conditions)". WOWS is not striving to be realistic and neither do I advocate that it should be. But it can and should be authentic, because if WOWS is not even that, then one might as well start playing some fantasy space combat game and not a game featuring historic ships whose stats and performance are based on real world performance. For the largest and overall best equipped heavy cruiser of WW2 I think the people of WOWS can change things to make the ship better in WOWS and actually worth 41 Euros. Give "Prinz Eugen" some of that "Mikhail Kutuzow" and "Belfast" "special" treatment for example. Like an improvement in gunnery accuracy for example and also give her the Repair Party Consumable not only because many other Premium cruisers have it but also because surviving two atomic bomb blasts in the real world counts for something. Not to mention "Prinz Eugen's" exceptional advanced late war radar which should also count for something. If however the good people at WOWS do not want to sell their "Prinz Eugen" and rather keep her in the current utterly inept state, then by all means let the 41 Euro "Prinz Eugen" remain as inferior as she currently is in WOWS and release some more new and better less expensive Premiums instead. The same applies to "Tirpitz" either display the ship in an authentic manner making her worth 45 Euros, or keep displaying her in her currently inferior and authentic form which keeps becoming worse with each new superior Premium released and each successive "nerf" applied to her either directly or indirectly as has been the case since February 2016 up till now. Here is one overview of ship stat data of the past two weeks. To be sure, anyone who has had regularly checked the last "two weeks" on this website over the past few months can see that these stats have remained a constant. This is important, because the last "two weeks" weeds out all the stat data concerning the "Tirpitz" when she was first released in WOWS in 2015. Looking at the following stats it becomes quite clear that "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" are not only the most expensive Premium ships in WOWS but also the ONLY losers in their respective Tiers and classes. The price for "Missouri" is fictitious since one cannot directly buy the ship for Euros only as is the case with "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz", because one needs to have 750,000 free XP first for the "Missouri". I can present many more of these data overviews. Instead of that I refer anyone to the "War Ships Today" website where one can easily check for oneself that generally EVERY PREMIUM cruiser and battleship is either the best performing ship in her Tier and class or among the top 3 in those cases where there is more than one Premium in a Tier and class, EXCEPT for "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz". German cruisers and destroyers in WOWS are generally so badly depicted in WOWS that they generally are the stat losers in their respective Tiers and Classes, but the most expensive Premium cruiser "Prinz Eugen" is the ONLY Premium cruiser which actually is the worst performing cruiser in her Tier and class. If one only looks at the battleship Premiums (and ignoring the silly Arpeggio battleships), and battleships being the most played class, the fact that "Tirpitz" too is the only Premium battleship loser in her Tier and class becomes quite clear as well: - USA Premium battleships: 5 (all the publicly released ones are the top performing Premium battleships in their Tier) - German Premium battleships: 3 (3 of them are the only Premium battleships in their Tier, but only one of them is the worst performing battleship in her Tier ("TIRPITZ") and the ONLY Premium to do so in WOWS) - Japanese Premium battleships: 2 (1 ship is the only battleship in her Tier, and the other one is ranked behind the USA Premium in its Tier) - Russian Premium battleships: 1 (TOP PERFORMING BATTLESHIP IN HER TIER AHEAD OF THE USA PREMIUM, THE ONLY NON-USA PREMIUM WHERE THIS IS THE CASE) - British Premium battleships: 1 (Inferior to the USA and French Premium battleships in her Tier) - French Premium battleships: 1 (Inferior to the USA Premium battleship in her Tier) As can be seen the Premiums "Belfast", "Mikhail Kutuzow" and "Atago" not only are the clear winners in their respective Tiers and classes but Tier 7 Premium cruiser "Belfast" even outperforms the top Tier 8 Premium cruisers. And all three of them seriously and dramatically outperform the most expensive Premium cruiser in WOWS, the 41 Euro Tier 8 heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen". To add insult to injury even the clear Tier 8 cruiser class loser "Admiral Hipper" is still able to beat the Premium "Prinz Eugen" stat wise! In like manner Tier 8 silver doubloon line battleships "Amagi" and "Bismarck" seriously and dramatically outperform the most expensive Premium battleship in WOWS, the 45 Euro Tier 8 battleship "Tirpitz". That makes the "Tirpitz" the only Premium battleship which is not only beaten stat wise by silver doubloon battleships in her Tier and class but also the ONLY Premium battleship to finish dead last stat wise in her Tier and class, and that for 45 Euros! The Premium Tier 9 battleship "Missouri" however seriously and dramatically outperforms all other Tier 9 battleships. The "Missouri" however can be unlocked for "free" if a player has 750,000 free XP, this cannot be done for the 45 Euro "Tirpitz". There is NO valid reason, not commercially, not historically, nor from the point of game "balance" to have the two most expensive Premium ships underperform so badly compared to all other Premiums and silver doubloons ships in their respective Tiers and classes. That makes "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" not only the most expensive Premiums, but also the only PAY TO LOSE ships in WOWS, stat wise. ALL USA Premium battleships and even the British Premium battleship (Warspite, commissioned in 1915(!)) in WOWS are ALL given their end WW2 (1944-1945) equipment state, most specifically and most notably their Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) armament EXCEPT for “Tirpitz”. Take for example the 1914 (!) commissioned Premium Tier 5 USA battleship “USS Texas”. That Premium ship has the AAA equipment state of 1945! If you look up every USA and British battleship it is quite clear that their equipment state is generally based on what they historically had in 1944+. Instead the WOWS “Tirpitz” is in sort of a hybrid 1941-1942 equipment state, meaning its Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) is based on roughly the 1941-1942 equipment state. So "Tirpitz" on purpose is given a huge disadvantage compared to the USA and British Premium battleships and even compared to its line/tree equivalent “Bismarck”. Since “Tirpitz” in WOWS mostly faces Tier 8, 9 and 10 battles it means that more often than not its Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) cannot deal as effective with enemy aircraft as the WOWS “Bismarck”. This is even more ridiculous from an authenticity point of view since no real world battleship, or ship for that matter, ever endured more aircraft attacks directed to it personally and beat them off successfully for years AND additionally shot down more aircraft in the process than any other (battle)ship in history. And there is no reason for this state of affairs, simply also give the "TIRPITZ" her authentic mid-1944 AAA setup of: 6x2 150mm (which used special AAA burst ammunition) 8x2 105mm 8x1 20mm 18x4 20mm 8x2 37mm Now IF the current WOWS “TIRPITZ” was statistically performing superior to all other Tier 8 battleships then there MIGHT be an argument to not bring “TIRPITZ” in WOWS up to “BISMARCK” strength in terms of accuracy, gun range etc. But the fact is that “TIRPITZ” is the worst performing Tier 8 battleship in WOWS in terms of damage inflicted and kill/death ratio. That is simply unacceptable for a ship which was bought for on average 70 Euros by players/customers. And it could be easily fixed by implementing an authentic “TIRPITZ” instead of the "nerfed" to mediocrity one which we have now. I can analyse every single Premium battleship in WOWS compared to its line/tree equivalent and everyone single one is superior to its line/tree equivalent EXCEPT for “TIRPITZ”. Take FOR EXAMPLE the "USS MISSOURI" compared to the "USS IOWA", the "USS MISSOURI" in WOWS has: - Better armour in some areas. - Better Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) in terms of range and Damage Per Second. - Longer ranged heavy artillery and medium artillery. - Better consumable (Surveillance Radar). “TIRPITZ” is a WOWS Premium 2015 battleship and apparently it has not been "updated" to 2016+ Premium status compared to the other Premium battleships in their respective Tiers. This is unfair and unacceptable. For example, if the new standard for tier 8+ (Premiums or otherwise) is that they have special consumables that should be added to “TIRPITZ” as well. The “TIRPITZ” having torpedoes was an authentic historic fact and not a "consumable" or "flavour" so that does not compensate for “TIRPITZ” not having a "special" consumable like its sister “BISMARCK” or the “USS MISSOURI”. The Premium Tier 9 battleship “USS MISSOURI” in WOWS has better armour, better accuracy (without any real authentic real world justification for it) and several other extras which in WOWS puts “USS MISSOURI” way ahead of her sister ship Line Tier 9 battleship “USS IOWA”. The question beckons: why is Premium “TIRPITZ” inferior to “BISMARCK” in WOWS? Whereas Premium “USS MISSOURI” is superior to “USS IOWA” in WOWS, as indeed are all other Premium battleships compared to their line/tree equivalent. I can generally make comparisons like these between every Premium battleship and its line/tree equivalent in WOWS. EACH Premium battleship is superior in WOWS to its line/tree equivalent EXCEPT for “TIRPITZ”. Now if there were some "authentic" reason for “BISMARCK” being superior to “TIRPITZ” it would be fine with me and I would not waste one post or word on it. There is NO “authentic” reason for this state of affairs however. “TIRPITZ” in real life was superior to “BISMARCK” and so it should be in WOWS. That “BISMARCK” outperforms other Tier 8 ships is irrelevant. "TIRPITZ” is statistically not only severely outperformed by “BISMARCK” but also by generally all other Tier 8 line/tree battleships in the areas which matter the most (damage inflicted, kill/death ratio) as statistics make clear. And that makes “TIRPITZ” the ONLY Premium battleship in WOWS which is outperformed by generally all the other battleships in its Tier. And what has WOWS done to “TIRPITZ” compared to “BISMARCK”: “TIRPITZ” is less accurate (at best 257 meter dispersion) than “BISMARCK” with its heavy artillery (38 cm) (at best 255 meter dispersion). “TIRPITZ” has considerably less range on her secondary and tertiary sea target artillery. “TIRPITZ” has inferior 1941/1942 Anti Aircraft Artillery, both in range and in Damage Per second. “TIRPITZ” is slower than “BISMARCK”. “TIRPITZ” is inferior armoured compared to “BISMARCK” (the belt armour 315 to 320). “TIRPITZ” has no “Hydro Acoustic Search” consumable, meaning it has one less consumable than “BISMARCK”. Now compare that to what is “authentic” (= conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features): “TIRPITZ” was AT LEAST as accurate as “BISMARCK” with its heavy artillery (38 cm). In fact “TIRPITZ” during its various gunnery trials built up an amazing and proven track record of accurate long range shooting unmatched by any other Kriegsmarine ship, including “BISMARCK”, or any other 1940s battleship for that matter. “TIRPITZ” had the EXCACT same secondary and tertiary sea target artillery as “BISMARCK” had. In fact the tertiary sea target artillery of “TIRPITZ” was better because all eight turrets were of the newer model, whereas in “BISMARCK” half of them were of the older model which led to them firing too long since the targeting computer was set to the newer model. “TIRPITZ” had the superior Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA). The 15 cm secondary artillery had special “burst” ammunition which allowed them to fire on aircraft, something “BISMARCK” could never do because he never received that late war ammunition due to sinking. The 10.5 cm Anti Aircraft Artillery of “TIRPITZ” was better because all eight turrets were of the newer model, whereas in “BISMARCK” half of them were of the older model which led to them firing too long since the targeting computer was set to the newer model. No Kriegsmarine ship ever came close to how many aircraft were shot down by “TIRPITZ” (37+), least of all “BISMARCK” and no Kriegsmarine ship ever had a more powerful AAA armament than “TIRPITZ”. "TIRPITZ” was faster than “BISMARCK” and had significantly more powerful turbines. “TIRPITZ” did have thinner belt armour (horizontal protection) (315 mm) compared to “BISMARCK” (320 mm) BUT that was because “TIRPITZ” had superior deck armour (vertical protection) than “BISMARCK” had. “TIRPITZ” had the exact same “Hydro Acoustic” equipment on board as “BISMARCK”. Some more information on “TIRPITZ” heavy artillery (38 cm) gunnery accuracy comes from real world German wartime GKdos-100 files containing actual primary source gunnery training firing exercises data, which gives the “TIRPITZ” a dispersion of 112 meters at 21 km. This is a far cry from the base 276 meters (257 meters at best) which the “TIRPITZ” has been given in WOW. http://www.kbismarck.com/38cm.html Based on this primary source gunnery training firing exercises data “TIRPITZ” had the LEAST dispersion of any World War II battleship. Not only that but there are no Japanese, British or USA wartime gunnery training firing exercise records which demonstrate that any Japanese, British and/or USA battleship ever achieved a dispersion at 21 km of 112 meters during the 1940s. And that includes the “USS IOWA” class. “TIRPITZ” performed several live heavy artillery firing tests during her existence. For example in August 1941 it fired on the remote controlled target ship “HESSEN”, which was an old 140 meter long pre-dreadnought capital ship. Most interestingly, the “HESSEN” was hit 9 times by “TIRPITZ” with her 38 cm rounds at a range of 25 km (25000 meters, 27340 yards) during the tests for example. Those 9 hits at 25 km were the longest range consistent gun hits in the world by any battleship in the 1940s and this performance to my knowledge has never been equalled or outdone by any other battleship. “HESSEN” was a radio controlled target ship especially up-armoured and altered to use it for target practice. “HESSEN” could move up to 21 knots, and was turning during the gunnery practice to make it a more difficult target to hit for “TIRPITZ”. "HESSEN" could change speed, turn and actively smoke, all remote controlled. Here an image of "HESSEN" being targeted by "TIPITZ": To put the historic battleship gunnery accuracy data into perspective based on the German Kriegsmarine and US Navy real world training firing exercise evaluation figures the following comparison can be made: - a “USS NEW MEXICO” battleship firing twelve 14"/35.6 cm naval guns at her maximum 1.75 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .10 hits per gun per minute would have 2.10 hits per minute at a range of 30 km. - a “USS COLORADO” battleship firing eight 16"/40.6 cm naval guns at her maximum 1.5 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .10 hits per gun per minute would have 1.20 hits per minute at a range of 30 km. - a “ USS NORTH CAROLINA” battleship firing nine 16"/40.6 cm naval guns at her maximum 2 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .12 hits per gun per minute would have 2.16 hits per minute at a range of 30 km. - a “TIRPITZ” battleship firing eight 15"/38 cm naval guns at her maximum 3.3 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .225 hits per gun per minute would have 5.94 hits per minute at a range of 30 km. There are also US Navy estimates based on US Navy statistical data. A US Naval War College study performed during World War II which was not based on actual real world training firing exercises estimated that an “USS IOWA” Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship “BISMARCK” would be (at best) expected to achieve the following hit percentage: - 2.7% "USS IOWA" hits at 30,000 yards (274 hm / 27 km) for “USS IOWA's” nine 16"/40.6 cm naval guns. This US Navy War College “USS IOWA” Class battleship World War II study hit percentage of 2.7% at 27 km against a target the size of “BISMARCK” is not exactly all that impressive compared to the: - 11.1% “TIRPITZ” hit percentage at 30 km; - 6.4% “SCHARNHORST” hit percentage at 30 km; - 4.8% “ADMIRAL SCHEER” hit percentage at 30 km; as described in the German wartime GKdos-100 files which are based on the evaluation of actual and repeated WW2 gunnery training firing exercises. The “USS IOWA” study figures are even less impressive compared to the actual German test results when one considers that the number of hits generally increase when the range is decreased, as is evident from both training and combat. In other words the "TIRPITZ", "SCHARNHORST" and "ADMIRAL SCHEER" hit percentages at 27 km are higher than the ones listed at 30 km above. Which is even more bad news for the "USS IOWA". And I have not even mentioned that for example all USA battleships have their theoretical highest rate of fire for their heavy artillery in WOWS which they never actually could attain in real life, neither during training nor in actual combat. Whereas "BISMARCK" and "TIRPITZ" with 38 cm heavy artillery demonstrably could fire an amazing 3.3 rounds per minute, these two ships however both have been given a low rate of fire of about only 2 rounds per minute which is in WOWS about equal to the best USA battleships at tier 7-10. And those USA battleships in real life could not even reach 2 rounds per minute during training, let alone in combat. For those hearty souls who are interested in the details of the AAA armament of the USA battleships compared to "Tirpitz" in WOWS, here is some of it:

The real world "HOOD" could by 1941 only attain a maximum of 28 knots at best, due to a variety of reasons. The "HOOD" which WOWS seems to be going to release appears to be in the 1941 equipment state, so it is safe to assume she will have a maximum speed of about 28 knots if WOWS at least keeps her speed authentic. I wonder what the WOWS "HOOD" will cost, since Tier 7 "SCHARNHORST" costs about 35 Euros, I expect "HOOD" to cost near to 40 Euros, this because of her fame and the fact that there currently is no other British higher tier battleship, other than much slower and lower tier "WARSPITE". It is also likely that there will be no tier equivalent for her in WOWS, since "HOOD" was one of a kind in real life as well. Making "HOOD" a one of a kind Premium with no tier equivalent will also push sales, especially for fans of the British Royal Navy.

Finally, finally, finally the mighty "HOOD" seems to be coming to WOWS. Although the "HOOD" was jokingly named "the largest submarine in the Royal Navy" because she was rather wet under-decks etc. she will surely or hopefully not suffer from that in WOWS. Let us hope she does not behave like the WOWS "KÖNIGSBERG" and "NÜRNBERG" with regards to blowing up often, since that is not fun at any time and especially not so in a premium ship. Let us hope the ship performs in WOWS.

I do not have IFHE as a skill for any of my ship commanders, yet. I will however probably reset the skills on one of my 19 skill point commanders which I use on "BISMARCK"/"TIRPITZ" to try IFHE out just for fun. To see if it is worth the four skill points I will probably end up do a series of tests, both with and without IFHE. Since the implementation of the new commander skills in 2017 I have reset the skills on that "BISMARCK"/"TIRPITZ" 19 skill point commander twice. One variant had the commander setup totally for damage control and survival, the other variant was setup for maximum (manual) AAA. The damage control variant was unspectacular, the AAA setup is pretty decent and also increases secondary and tertiary gun range. As to why IFHE can be interesting to use, take a look at this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/5ordcb/datamined_list_of_ifhe_penetration_changes/ Based on that link one can assume that IFHE for "BISMARCK"/"TIRPITZ" is not just useful their secondary (15 cm) and tertiary armament (10.5 cm) but also for their main armament (38 cm) according to the data mined data on reddit: C = can pen 19/25/32mm (Examples: YYN = can pen 19 and 25mm, YYY = can pen 19 25 and 32mm) Names suffixed with * are secondaries Name - Alpha - Base Pen - IFHE Pen - C - IFHE C - Ships 380 mm Spr.Gr. L/4.6 4400 95.00 123.50 YYY YYY Gneisenau, Bismarck, Tirpitz 150 mm Spr.Gr. L/4.5 1700 37.00 48.10 YYY YYY Großer Kurfürst*, Friedrich der Große*, Roon*, Gneisenau*, Scharnhorst*, Bismarck*, Admiral Graf Spee*, Tirpitz* 128 mm Spr.Gr. Kz. 1500 31.00 40.30 YYN YYY Großer Kurfürst*, Gneisenau* 105 mm Spr.Gr. Kz. 1300 18.00 23.40 NNN YNN Hindenburg*, Bayern*, Friedrich der Große*, Roon*, Gneisenau*, Scharnhorst*, Prinz Eugen*, Bismarck*, Admiral Graf Spee*, Admiral Hipper*, Tirpitz*, Yorck*, König* Based on that data "BISMARCK"/"TIRPITZ" can penetrate 123 mm of armour with IFHE rounds with their armament (38 cm) from any angle angle since IFHE, unlike AP, practically ignores angle of impact for armour penetration purposes and always explodes on impact, unlike AP. There is a video with a German battleship IFHE experiment: Jingles, among many others, also made an interesting video about IFHE:

I play WOWS for the historic ships and hope that the game tries to become less arcade like in the future and instead more authentic both in matches and in ship stat presentation, while at the same time remaining just a game and not becoming a realistic simulator. I do not care about winning, having good player stats, using only ships with the best performance stats. I instead play the game for wanting to see and use historic authentic virtual ships, enjoyment, entertainment as well as challenging and fair match ups. That brings me to two recent matches I have had which either were really freak “accidents” or which maybe are part of a new trend since the release of the new USSR destroyers and corresponding changes made to the whole USSR destroyer line. In the two match examples my Tier 8 battleship sustained 58% and respectively 61% damage from gunfire and fires alone from one single enemy Tier 8 USSR “Ognewoi” destroyer. The destroyer suffered 18% and respectively 21% gunfire and total damage from my ship in return. I have never experienced this in about 1,300 to 2,000 matches with various battleships. To be sure I generally do not put out 2 raging fires when there is a high chance of getting 3 fires when my ship is under fire from 2 or more HE firing ships with a high fire starting chance. So in those two match examples I held back with my Damage Control consumable till I had two or three fires raging. Before the latest USSR destroyer expansion the only USSR destroyers which were major gunfire threats for a Tier 8 battleships were the Tier 10 and to a lesser degree Tier 9 ones. What this newly updated “Ognewoi” did I have never experienced at the hands of any Tier 8 destroyer in the past year. If this is going to repeat itself, than there really is no fun to using battleships in WOWS any more. So I hope this was a freak accident x2. Was this just a freak accident x2, or have other players seen this happen as well recently? Detailed description of the matches: Match Example 1 Match Example 2

To try and put it politely, I get the impression that maybe we have a different frame of reference when it comes to CEO's, developers, companies and how they work and public statements made by CEO's and lower hierarchy development team members. I do not know if you have ever worked in a management position in a company and if you understand how companies and ICT and other projects actually work. But from your response I begin to get the idea that you do not. The developers are not in charge, what they say or not say is interesting to note but they are not calling the shots in simpleton terms. And their public statements can be taken note of, but they should not be regarded as being "the law". I would like to ask you, did you actually read what I linked earlier? https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2017/03/07/wargaming-ceo-accepts-blame-vows-renewed-focus-on-world-of-tanks/ It purportedly quotes Wargaming’s chief executive officer, Victor Kislyi: "Kislyi blames himself, and his top-down creative demands on the game." “I was pushing all those teams to literally copy World of Tanks,” Kislyi said. “That was wrong.” I hope you know what a Chief Executive Officer is. I am under the impression that you do not based on your above comments, if you do then do not take it this as an insult. To put it in simpleton terms that is the guy eventually calling the shots, not some developer. The developers can have many intentions and thoughts, but in the end it is not they who decide. It is management which does up to and including the CEO. And the CEO of Wargaming went on record to actually admit that he pushed his teams (including the WOWS development team) to develop the games in a certain way. That is what people can do that are calling the shots. In simpleton terms: the developers are below the CEO in the decision making process and they are not in charge. Based on the remark of the CEO of Wargaming he more or less ignored the developers and instead simply told them what he wanted them to do. So keep that in mind next time you read some remark from a developer and ask yourself the question instead if that developer really has the authority to push have realized what he states. I have tried to explain all this in the simplest terms to make sure the message comes across because I am under the impression you did not understand all this up till now. No insult intended. CEO > Developer. If that needs to be explained to you then I am instead going to refer you to study how companies work in the time that you are not playing WOWS. No insult intended. And from Wargaming's Chief Executive Officer comes the quote: "When Warships launched in 2015 the game got lots of good buzz, including here at Polygon. Our preview called is one of the best free-to-play games we’d ever played. But the community did not stick around to support it after launch. Player retention trailed off, Kislyi said, after six months to a year." In simpleton terms that means that the Wargaming CEO of his own volition (free will) admitted that the number of people playing WOWS declined, in other words became less. Player retention in simpleton terms means the ability to keep players interested enough in a game to keep playing the game, and according to the CEO the game World of Warships could not keep players interested enough to keep playing it 6 to 12 months after launch, in simpleton terms. I do not consider WOWS in its current from a team player game. I explained to you earlier why, but I will make another attempt to make clear to you why that is. For me a "Team" is something along these lines: "A hierarchically organized group of people that personally know one another and which have a full set of complementary skills required to cooperatively and collectively complete a task, job, or project. Team members (1) operate with a high degree of interdependence, (2) share authority and responsibility for self-management, (3) are accountable for the collective performance, and (4) work toward a common goal and shared rewards(s). A team becomes more than just a collection of people when a strong sense of mutual commitment creates synergy, thus generating performance greater than the sum of the performance of its individual members." I played in such teams in "Wargame: Red Dragon" (WRD) for example. One of the key concepts of such teams is being "accountable for the collective performance". In simpleton terms that means that if the team does badly because of the actions of one or more team members that those team members will have to answer for it. And teams like that is not what you have in WOWS when you play a ranked match or a random PVP match. In most matches players for quite human and understandable (escapism) reasons are not really interested in really working together. These players mostly do not know each other personally, they come from different age groups, they use fake names (gamer tags), many speak different languages, most are not in voice chat and even more ignore text chat or use that to complain and usually only that after they have been sunk. If their side loses due to their actions then there is no way that a player can be held accountable for that. And that is what you see in WOWS matches, players generally doing whatever comes to mind. Some are more inclined to support others, but most of them simply do their "own thing" in simpleton terms. So for me, WOWS does not have real teams in random PVP and in random ranked matches. And most WOWS players play random PVP matches. Sure there can be real teams in WOWS of people who work together (clans) who seriously commit to one another, train for it, communicate via voice chat etc. That is rather the exception than the rule however in WOWS. So what you seem to call a "Team" in WOWS I call a bunch of random players being randomly thrown together on one side versus another bunch of random players being randomly thrown together on the other side. What I call a "Team" is a hierarchically organized group of people that personally know one another and which have a full set of complementary skills required to cooperatively and collectively complete a task, job, or project. The main player base of WOWS are just random players thrown together like in the WOWS ranked matches and random PVP matches. You might call that a team, but for me that is just a bunch of random players on one side versus a bunch of random players on the other side. And that is reflected in the way WOWS matches generally play out. And whether you believe it or not, a game developer has to accept that reality and facilitate (support) it if he want to retain the majority of his player base. In simpleton terms he has to give his largest player group, the escapists, what they want or they will leave. No game company can live off a small group of elitists, the money comes from having a very large player base. And whatever public statement is made by WOWS staff members, one has to realize that they will never publicly admit that they make a visually appealing but basically simple arcade style game where a bunch of random people play one one side versus a bunch of random people on the other side and where the Random Number Generator code combined with a clever player performance based reward/punishment system determines the match results. And they might say that the game is team play based and that they are going to try and limit the number of battleships per match, but anybody that can think for himself and who actually analyses what happens in WOWS matches can see in what direction this game is being developed. A game like WRD has taken to an extent a more elitist approach, and the result is that less and less people play that game which is clearly reflected in very long waiting times for 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 PVP matches, especially if one side in the lobby consists of a real dedicated team with good victory percentage stats. WRD too however has its own version of the WOWS 12vs12 matches, where people just randomly join, those matches more or less play out like WOWS matches. That is, a bunch of random players playing on one side versus a bunch of random players playing on another side. But those WRD lobbies fill up fast unlike the more elitist 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 PVP team matches. You remarked: "If players that join the game purely because of the 'impressive' ships leave the game, if WG nerfs them (or bufffs the other classes), then so be it." That is exactly however what WOWS management cannot afford to do, whether they or the development team members will ever publicly admit it or not. The money comes from having a very large player base, and exactly these kind of "impressive ship" players as you want to call them make up that large player base. Never bite the hand that feeds you. Just look at the way this game is still advertised when you look for it via for example google: "World of Warships - free online multiplayer game about battleships from Wargaming." Do you really think this is just random coincidence, or an oversight to still have WOWS listed as such in 2017? Certain WOWS players can be bored by, irritated by or simply full of hate of battleships but WOWS management cannot afford to downgrade battleships to the point that they could in return (further) lose part of their main player base. Whatever they might publicly say and whether you like it or not, battleships are the main player base attraction in this game. As to the first post in this topic. Plain and simple I have never before in thousands of matches met an "Ognewoi" to be a gunfire/fire threat like I found it to be in those two matches which I had after the latest USSR destroyer additions and improvements. I am used to Tier 9 and Tier 10 USSR destroyers (especially Tier 10) to be gunfire/fire threats but not the "Ognewoi", at least up till now. The "Ognewois" did not sink my ship in those two matches, but if they had received some support from a battleship or cruiser they could easily have. So I asked forum members if this match result of the hitherto unremarkable "Ognewoi" was a freak accident x2 or if others have had this experience with the hitherto fairly "normal" "Ognewoi" after the implementation of the USSR destroyer additions and improvements. No need to get emotional about that sunshine. Whatever else you want to read in my first post is fine by me, to put it politely. You are seriously deluding yourself however when you think that forum members by asking a simple question on a game forum owe you some sort of explanation, either in the form of "proof", "stats" or whatever else you think you are entitled to. And by trying to negatively label forum members who do not agree with you or who do not give in to your "demands", you really give an insight into your thought process which does not particularly reflect positive on you. To put it politely.

The only thing funny is that you are actually interested in them. I could not care less about anybody else's stats. But I may see the appeal of that for a teenager, if one is at that age some people do that. I have seen what stat checking did to "Wargame Red Dragon" (WRD). It is toxic and your and other comments along these same lines make this quite clear. Since I unfortunately cannot hide my stats in WRD one can see that I have a win percentage of over 81 percent in that game in close to 2000 PVP matches, and that leads to people not wanting to play with you and people leaving the game over time. I never checked the stats of any player in a WRD lobby, because if they are good nice, if they are not then I will see in the match. I play for the game, not for the player stats.

Not without a shadow of a doubt, not by a long shot concerning the two Japanese ships you mention. Read accounts from all sides. As to Scharnhorst, her crew scuttled her. Read the debriefing of the 36 survivors of Scharnhorst. Something went wrong in Scharnhorst before any torpedo hit, probably an engine failure since the ship had not been run at such high speeds for a very long period. Whatever the cause of it, her speed dropped and that allowed the destroyers to close the range since she had been pulling away from all the British ships. The torpedoes did not sink her, the crew scuttled the ship since all ammunition was expended. Standard operating procedure for many navies, including the Kriegsmarine.

We can only speculate about what the true concept of the game is. And about what the concept of the game is I am not going to speculate That is just as useless as speculating about why the dinosaurs became extinct. Only those in the know, know. That is only the management in charge of WOWS can answer the concept question for sure because they call the shots, they dictate the development team what to make and how to make it. I do not have a chair at their table, I do not want one either. The only thing which counts for me as a consumer is to let them know what I like and do not like. Because that is what is under my control and that is what is important for me.I eat what I like, not what I do not like. I play games I like and not those which I do not like. What you and I can use this forum for is letting the people behind WOWS know what you and I like and do not like. Hopefully they will listen to their customers, but if they do not then some customers will move on. And that is what has been seen in this game, the number of players has been fluctuating. https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2017/03/07/wargaming-ceo-accepts-blame-vows-renewed-focus-on-world-of-tanks/ "Wargaming’s chief executive office, Victor Kislyi, was in a mood to spill his guts last week. During an interview with Polygon in San Francisco, he was candid about his recent mistakes and vowed a renewed focus on his company’s flagship title, World of Tanks. “We were a little arrogant, let’s say, three years ago,” Kislyi told Polygon. “We were thinking we know everything that our players need without talking intensively to them ourselves. It turned into — I wouldn’t call it a disaster, but we hit the wall at some point.” When Warships launched in 2015 the game got lots of good buzz, including here at Polygon. Our preview called is one of the best free-to-play games we’d ever played. But the community did not stick around to support it after launch. Player retention trailed off, Kislyi said, after six months to a year. Kislyi blames himself, and his top-down creative demands on the game." For one man a certain woman might look beautiful and for another she might look ugly. And so it is with "balance". Your idea of "balance" is not my idea of "balance". And about what the idea is of the people behind WOWS about "balance" I can again only speculate. Looking at the disastrously mediocre German destroyer line, which I have played up till Tier 8, I can only say that I truly do not understand why they have put so much development effort in such utterly mediocre WOWS destroyers. And that is just one example to make clear that the idea of "balance" at WOWS management is only something we can speculate about. Looking at my "Ognewoi" example matches, there was no balance. The battleship could not hit back as hard as it was being damaged. That is not balance, that is one sided.My idea of balance is to let each individual ship class have a fighting chance to more or less equally damage another class in a 1 versus 1 situation based on player skill. Because these 1 versus 1 situations cannot be avoided by the slower ship and the faster ship also has the added bonus of being able to dictate the combat range. So there the balance is lost, the faster ship has two advantages: being able to choose whether or not to enter into or avoid a 1 versus 1 combat AND being able to dictate the range of the combat. Let that sink in. As to your statement "this game is supposed to be a team game", you are again speculating there. And as I said above, speculating about the concept that the WOWS management has about this game is futile. Only the management in charge of WOWS can answer the concept question for sure because they call the shots, they dictate the development team what to make and how to make it. What we do have is reality. And that reality is human nature. And that means that people who play a game for leisure/pleasure are basically undisciplined, not taking orders and they also do not want to play a game when there is some hierarchy and obligation structure at work. For that they have their jobs, their families, their school/study. WOWS is escapism pure and simple. That is all it is. Now there are some professional or semi-professional gamers, but that is such a tiny percentage of the total number of people who play (free to play) games that they are not important in the grand scheme of things.. So you might write "this game is supposed to be a team game" but not only are you speculating there, you are overlooking one important fact. It does not matter what something is supposed to be, it only matters what it is. People are all supposed to follow the law, to stop at pedestrian crossings etc. but they do not do that however. That is human nature. And WOWS is in its current form no team game, save for those players who only play together as a team in voice chat. For the vast majority of players in random matches, that is the majority player base, the game is simply individual escapism. IF you or anybody else wants to shoehorn these people into a tight corset of team play, a hierarchy, a standard structured way of playing ships and ship classes then they will leave. Because escapism is exactly there to not be bothered by those things at the end of your working/school/family day. Those players that look for team play, can join a team and play together in voice chat. But for those players with families etc. and who do not live in a basement playing online "team" games as some sort of a recluse with their headset on 24/7 to talk to their virtual friends, for those the prospect of a tightly organized team is not appealing. And that is reality. And due to that WOWS will never become a true team game if it wants to have mass appeal. And mass appeal is where the money comes from, not from some niche team game. I used to play "Wargame Red Dragon", online PVP team play with 2vs2 up till 4vs4 teams where individual player skill is quite important, much more so than in WOWS 12vs12 random player matches. The developers of "Wargame Red Dragon" decided to let players in the lobby check out each others stats. And that opened up the can of worms of player stat checking and its toxic effects on a game. Due to some team players visibly having a high victory ratio the number of casual players playing the game has gone down. When players in "Wargame Red Dragon" see that I have played thousands of PVP matches with a 81+% victory rate they simply leave the lobby, and as a result we sit there waiting for 20+ minutes waiting for a match. And that is reality and not speculation. Consequently if WOWS would become a true team player game the number of casual players, that is the majority of the player base, would go down. And that would be the commercial end of WOWS. Your example of a professional football team is totally inappropriate with regard to WOWS. A professional football team is that: a collection of professionals who all have to work together and obey a hierarchy or else they will not get paid. But these are the kind of people who also in their spare time will seek escapism where they do not have to enter into team play. Because that is what escapism is for. And WOWS is escapism, pure and simple and not a professional occupation with duties, obligations and a hierarchy. If hope you can grasp all this because I am not interested in explaining that any further. As to real world accuracy of battleship gunnery, you seem to have missed the real world example I gave earlier. The battleship "Bismrack" could hit four out of five destroyers, even though the battleship crew had no control over the movement of the ship (requirement for accurate gunnery computing) and with a crew which was exhausted from practically being at actions stations for day and nights on end as well as from being in naval combat with battleships and cruisers as well as aircraft in the past few days. And yet still they straddled the relatively small destroyers generally with the first salvo. The destroyers in return had a gunnery and torpedo hit percentage, REAL WORLD, of zero precent. As to how many players prefer battleships, that also ties into escapism. I like them all, the real world motor torpedo boats, corvettes, frigates, torpedo boats, destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, aircraft carriers, submarines. But some are more impressive than others and that too is part of escapism. Just like most players would take a fighter in a flight sim over a bomber, so some ship types are more attractive than others. And so it is with battleships. More people who play WW2 oriented naval games will be interested in the impressive and unique battleships than the run of the mill destroyers. Escapists would rather be an admiral than an ordinary sailor. And that is the attraction of battleships over the foot soldiers that destroyers in many ways are. So WOWS cannot make the battleships less attractive to play because then many players would stop playing the game. Destroyers simply are not as impressive as aircraft carriers or battleships. That too is reality and human nature. So WOWS management would have to face up to that or lose even more players. If WOWS management would indirectly force players to choose other ship classes than battleships in order not to lose a lot of matches, then players who are more impressed by battleships will eventually leave the game. If you have ever visited a naval port where naval vessels were open for the general public, you would quickly see that people line up to go to an aircraft carrier but not to visit some smaller less impressive looking naval vessel. And so it is in WOWS for the escapist. As to some real world data from gunnery training exercises etc. from both the German Kriegsmarine and the USA navy, take a look at this:

Actually understanding English is apparently difficult for some people. So I will explain. I advocate that WOWS would strive to represent historic ships an "authentic" treatment. To be sure, I do NOT mean a "simulator" or "realistic" approach, but an "authentic" one. For those that do not understand the difference: Authentic - "Conforming to an original and/or the real world so as to reproduce essential features". Simulator - "A computer simulation (or "sim") is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer under real world conditions". Realistic - "Resembling or simulating real life (conditions)". Having said that, that is not what this post is about. The question was simply if people have had the same experience facing "Ognewoi" after the USSR destroyer update.I expect this performance from a Tier 9 and 10 USSR destroyer, but I have not seen this from a Tier 8 USSR destroyer in the past year. You asked: "Shall we actually look at what dds could actually do to capital ships?" Yes by all means let us look at that if you ask the question. Your question not mine. Be careful what you ask for... here we go... For example let us take a solitary 251 meter long and 36 meter wide 53,546 ton battleship which lies more or less motionless on the Atlantic, without the ability to steer and without having any actually controlled direction forward or backward movement. According to the survivors of the ship which were interrogated by the British Royal Navy, the battleship was at that point in effect motionless. Such a "sitting duck" is the perfect target for a destroyer flotilla attack, both with guns and with torpedoes. Now take five modern destroyers, four of which were of the famous Tribal class arguably the best British destroyers at the time, commanded by arguably one of the best destroyer commanders in the British Royal Navy, Sir Philip Vian who later became Admiral of the Fleet (the highest rank in the British Royal Navy). These five destroyers launch several attacks against the solitary, effectively motionless battleship. All five destroyers fail to score even one gunnery hit and even one torpedo hit on the hapless battleship, but four out of the five destroyers are hit and damaged by the battleship in return. In case you do not know, this really happened and it concerns an attack on the battleship "Bismarck" by the 4th Destroyer Flottila of the British Royal Navy in May 1941. You can read up on that historic event here: http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisdiscovered.html And if you want to be certain that the battleship "Bismarck" was actually effectively motionless so that they did not evade all that destroyer gunfire and their torpedoes by sneakily moving the battleship, you can read up on the actual debriefing reports of the survivors of battleship "Bismarck" on this page: http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/index.html http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/debriefing.html http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/survivor-reports.pdf Do you know how many battleships were actually sunk by destroyers without a shadow of a doubt in WW2? The answer: 0. So that was your question not mine. As to "balance", it is not what this topic is about. Having said that, in my mind balance should be around the fact that this game is for the main not played by "teams" but by individuals who enjoy a casual match. These individuals do not really work together, nor really want to work together since the game is played not for work but for leisure/pleasure. And that means the game should be balanced around the players. That means that a destroyer should be able to deal with all threats by herself to a reasonable degree in case a player is deserted by the rest of the individuals he/she is thrown together with by chance via matchmaking. And this does not hold just true for destroyers but for all ship classes: cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers. The reason for that is quite simple, players "desert" other players because they under no obligation to not do so. If a destroyer commander thinks a flank is in a hopeless situation he can leave and move off, and thus leave the rest of the fleet to be targeted while remaining invisible. A cruiser can do the same to a battleship. Battleships can only do that to other battleships if they are faster. And carriers can be dedicated solitary players who can remain invisible if they now how to use their carrier well. The balance should therefore be in that at least each ship type has a reasonable chance to deal with every other ship type in a clean 1 versus 1 situation, since those situations can not always be avoided by a player even if he wants to. In my example matches the "Ognewoi" could simply outrun and outgun the battleship. If that is the case in 1 versus 1 situations between ship classes, then the balance is lost, and this is bad for long term player retention. Because players cannot avoid unwanted 1 versus 1 situations even if they want to, due to limitations of the speed of their ship.

I think you probably hit the nail on the head with that remark I put in bold above in your post. I am not so much for historical accuracy, so not for turning WOWS into a realistic simulator, but I do support authenticity which is something different. As to the rest of the fleet, in the first match example our right flank had been more or less totally sunk, so about half our fleet was sunk already. I was part of the still fairly intact left flank, but turned back to support our "Shimakaze" capture the second zone from the left of the map, since we only had one out of four zones (the one on the far left). I saw that our "Shimakaze" would be run down by the 2x British cruisers and the "Ognewoi" so I did my best to make sure she had a chance of capturing the zone. As to the rest of our fleet, they kept going north-west chasing down some fleeing battleship into the top left corner of the map. In the second match example most of our fleet was on the other flank and I had about three friendly ships near me, before I moved in front of our "Iowa" to give our "Iowa" a chance to recover from damage sustained, but "Iowa" was still sunk in the end. The third friendly near me was a British cruiser which was sunk by another British cruiser. I could deal with the Japanese destroyer torpedoes, but not with what the "Ognewoi" was doing, so I asked for some support and one friendly USSR destroyer then came up behind me for support.

@ Hateshinaku I agree that "Ognewoi" looks like nothing special. That is why I wonder how that was possible. What is strange however is your hostility. I simply ask forum members if they have seen this kind of performance from "Ognewoi", because in thousands of matches I have never seen anything like that from a destroyer at that Tier. @ Allied_Winter Yes I do have the replays and no I will not share them. It happened, I am only interested if this is a new trend with "Ognewoi" since the update and expansion of the USSR destroyer line. If no one else has seen that happen with "Ognewoi" or any other destroyer since the latest USSR destroyer line changes I will just write the matches off as freak accidents x2.

To be sure I never asked for a smoke generator on any battleship in WOWS, neither did you write that I did as far as I understand by the way. I think the whole smoke screen feature in WOWS is toxic for game play and is becoming more so as more and more ships are getting that feature. Supposedly WOWS management wants to get rid of open water "stealth" fire, but is not bothered by for example 3x "Belfast" lying next to each in a huge smoke screen and being able to clearly see and accurately fire out of smoke, without in return being actually seen and accurately fired upon by their hapless victims. In my opinion "stealth" fire, whether from open water, from behind an island or out of some magic cloaking device smoke screen is toxic and bad for game play. Having said that just as a matter of historical fact, the smoke screens which ships could lay were quite impressive. Take a look at this image: This photograph was taken from the heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" in the infamous battle of the Denmark Strait in 1941 in which "HOOD" sank and "PRINCE OF WALES" tactically advanced to the rear. Now the "PRINCE OF WALES" is on the right in that photograph, with several 38 cm shell splashes from "BISMARCK" landing near her. As you can see the smoke screen which "PRINCE OF WALES" had laid was quite large, to use an understatement. Can you clearly make out the "PRINCE OF WALES" in the smoke screen? To get an idea of what a smoke screen looks like from an actual British Royal Navy WW2 era cruiser, take a look at this video at "1:47:39" minutes: A fun fact: the "TIRPITZ" was actually completed with a depth charge installation for use against submarines and there are photographs of her using them during her working up period. They were later removed from the deck and never used. Needless to say I would not advocate any battleship in WOWS getting working depth charge installations. On a side note, I updated and expanded the first post in this topic by correcting the statement about "Duca d'Aosta", "Belfast" etc. and further added more WOWS performance stat data as well as some more technical data and ship equipment comparisons etc.

Website "The Armored Patrol" section "World of Warships", 17th February 2017. https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2017/02/17/wows-qa-17th-february-2017/ This is one Premium I look forward to, provided they do not give her the WOWS "TIRPITZ" and "PRINZ EUGEN" treatment. Spoiler

Yes, you are right. Well maybe it is time for starting a topic for "Belfast" to get the Repair Party Consumable then, haha. Seriously, I will correct that in my post, thanks. All the more remarkable how she outperforms both "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" without it!

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Meaning only testing done in a controlled environment with constant reproducible results are conclusive, not opinions or what one "feels" to be the case. Quite simple, based on extensive testing done in "Tirpitz" both with and without "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" my conclusion is that WITHOUT "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" you get hits all over the enemy ship from bow to stern, with fires being started and hits being registered from bow to stern. With "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" you get more hits on the enemy ship but you inflict less direct HE and fire damage in return because the same central sector of the enemy ship keeps getting hit over and over again. I did dozens of tests with "Tirpitz" against "Yamatos" and "Shimakazes" for example from version 5.5 and upwards over a period of several months, and the result was always the same: "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" always does less damage than is inflicted without it. It does not matter if the damage is done over 1 minute or over 3 minutes. If you do not believe me, test it yourself in the training room. But do not do 1 or 2 tests, do at least a dozen or so. I even tested about a dozen+ times against both stationary and moving "Yamatos" and "Shimakazes" to see if "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" would be more effective against a fast moving and turning destroyer than against a slow moving and turning battleship. But the result was the same, every single time, more total direct HE and fire damage is done WITHOUT "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament". Now to be sure, I at first could not believe that "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" was actually a downgrade, so that is why I kept testing it. I reset my - then - 18 point (now 19 point) "Tirpitz" commander several times with gold doubloons to do these and other tests. To be sure for many months, I used "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" on my then 18 point "Tirpitz" commander, but I no longer do because the skill is simply not worth it, the skill is in actuality a downgrade. Some conclusions based on testing with "Tirpitz": - with the "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill "Tirpitz" has about 15-30+% more effective accuracy than without it, depending on the target type and its movement - 25% hit rate without "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill versus stationary Yamato (baseline)- about 27% hit rate without "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill versus moving Yamato (baseline) - 54% hit rate with "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill versus stationary Yamato (about +29% than without it)- 60% hit rate with "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill versus moving Yamato (about +33% than without it) - about 13% hit rate without "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill versus stationary Shimakaze (baseline)- about 14% hit rate without "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill versus moving Shimakaze (baseline) - 28% hit rate with "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill versus stationary Shimakaze (about +15% than without it)- 39% hit rate with "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill versus moving Shimakaze (about +25% than without it) - with the "Secondary Battery Modification 2" module "Tirpitz" has about 5-13% more effective accuracy than without it, depending on the target type and its movement - about 36% hit rate with"Secondary Battery Modification 2" module versus stationary Yamato (about +11% than without it)- about 40% hit rate with "Secondary Battery Modification 2" module versus moving Yamato (about +13% than without it) - about 18% hit rate with "Secondary Battery Modification 2" module versus stationary Shimakaze (about +5% than without it)- about. 26% hit rate with "Secondary Battery Modification 2" module versus moving Shimakaze (about +12% than without it) But as I said, the accuracy is NOT what counts, what counts instead is the actual damage inflicted both through direct HE damage and more importantly through fires. Since "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" keeps hitting the center of the enemy ship it does less direct HE damage and starts less fires. Without "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" more HE damage is done from bow to stern and more fires are started on enemy ships from bow to stern. Unless WOWS drastically quietly improved the "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" skill in the past few months, then it really is not worth it.

The only thing that can answer the questions on the usefulness of the "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" and the "Aiming Systems Modification 1" is testing, testing, testing. And that is what I have done in the form of dozens of tests in the training room and to a lesser degree in regular matches, since the results of regular matches do not always lend themselves for objective evaluation unlike the controlled condition tests in the training room. The results of dozens of tests under controlled conditions are: 1. With the "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" your secondary and tertiary armament hits more BUT it keeps hitting the same spot in the center of the enemy ship and due to that they actually do less damage OVER TIME. Once this center is already on fire or destroyed not much more damage can be done there. That means that OVER TIME less damage is actually done with this commander skill due to the same spot being hit over and over again. Without this skill the secondary and tertiary batteries fire all over the place, they miss a lot but they also hit the enemy ship from bow to stern, meaning they eventually will start fires from bow to stern which will do more damage over time. In training room tests with battleship "Tirpitz" using only her secondary and tertiary armament against an AI controlled "Yamato", the "Yamato" sinks in half the time WITHOUT "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" than with "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament". So the "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" skill actually does less damage to the enemy and weakens your ship. This was also tested with battleship "Tirpitz" using only her secondary and tertiary armament against both moving and stationary "Shimakazes" and the result was the same. Due to the wild scattering of the more inaccurate secondary and tertiary armament WITHOUT "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" the "Tirpitz" actually does more damage OVER TIME and starts more fires WITHOUT this skill than with it. If you do not believe it, do some tests in the training room yourself, be sure to put the AI in a mode where they do not fire back and do not use your main guns only the AI controlled secondary and tertiary armament. Next to that what is even worse, is that a commander with the "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" skill will have his ship only fire on ONE target and only if it is manually targeted/selected by the player. So a "Tirpitz" without this skill will have all her secondary and tertiary armament (3x2 to port and 3x2 to starboard 15cm and 4x2 to port and 4x2 to starboard 10.5 cm) firing on the enemy while a "Tirpitz" with this skill will have only HALF her secondary and tertiary armament firing on the enemy (3x2 15 cm and 4x2 10.5 cm). So the skill actually effectively cuts the effective secondary and tertiary armament in half, which is a serious reduction in firepower when in short range combat with more than one enemy ship to port and starboard. 2. The "Aiming Systems Modification 1" in many, many tests with "Tirpitz" in the training room against all targets types (battleships, cruisers, destroyers" actually yields about 10 percent more main gun battery hits at all ranges (short range < 15 km, longer range >15 km). So for example without this "Aiming Systems Modification 1" module with an accuracy of 20 percent with your main guns you would get 20 hits if you fire 100 main gun rounds. With this"Aiming Systems Modification 1" module you would get 22 hits if you fire 100 main gun rounds, so that means 22 percent accuracy and that translates into 2 main gun battery hits more than without the skill. Conclusions In my opinion you are better off with the module "Secondary Battery Modification 2" which improves your secondary armament "accuracy and range by 20 percent" or the "AAA Guns Modification 2" module which improves your Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA) "range by 20 percent". Improving the range is what counts in my opinion, the earlier your secondary, tertiary and AAA armament start to do damage the more effective your ship is. As to the "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill it is really not worth it since it simply weakens your ship both in inflicted damage over time and by halving the secondary and tertiary armament which actually fires on the enemy, not to mention the extra manual input action needed from the player to select an enemy ship as target for the secondary and tertiary armament for it to work in the first place. The combination of "Direction Center for Catapult Aircraft ", "Adrenaline Rush ", "Basic Firing Training ", "Advanced Firing Training ", "Manual Fire Control for AAA Armament" commander skills together with the "AAA Guns Modification 2" module for "Tirpitz" is more useful for me. Only launch the two catapult fighters just before the torpedo bombers come in for their attack, always turn towards incoming torpedo bombers and go in full reverse just before they drop their torpedoes and only use your Damage Control Party until after all dive and torpedo bomber flights have executed their attack. That setup and tactic for example lets me regularly shoot down 30 to 40 aircraft (that is about 30-40 percent of the total number of aircraft aboard most carriers in WOWS) if a carrier decides to all out attack me in "Tirpitz". Usually the only times this fails is when a tier 9-10 Japanese or Saipan carrier commander who is an expert at using torpedo bombers focuses on me, then I only shoot down about 10 to 15 at best. Expert Saipan or Japanese Tier 9-10 carrier commanders can always sink "Tirpitz" in one attack with their torpedo bombers, but at least you will shoot down more aircraft with such an AAA setup in "Tirpitz" than without it. If there are two Japanese or Saipan expert carrier commanders focusing on you in "Tirpitz" then nothing will help you survive their combined torpedo bomber attack anyway, but that does not happen often fortunately. One important thing to remember is that if your commander has the "Manual Fire Control for AAA Armament" skill, your ship will still fire all her AAA even if you forget to manually select an enemy aircraft flight (but then without the 100 percent extra effectiveness), whereas with the "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" commander skill your ship will NOT fire her secondary and tertiary armament AT ALL if you forget to select a target for them! TLDNR: Do not use "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" and do not use "Aiming Systems Modification 1", other commander skills and modules offer your ship better damage output potential based on extensive testing. As a general rule of thumb, any commander skill or module which does not give you at least a +20% bonus has no significant impact in a match.