Widar_Thule

I am really curious: will the new Russian destroyers also suffer from being spotted from the same ranges as the new German destroyers when they fire their main guns? Will they be able to be outgunned by other nationality destroyers (German ones for example) which have larger calibre guns or will they also have superior cannons like the current Russian destroyers have in WOWS? Having played the new German destroyer line up till Tier 8 (Z 23) I find it more than unfair in matches that the new German destroyers are the ONLY destroyers in WOWS which suffer from being spotted from very long range when they use their main guns which unlike the Russian destroyers have a very low chance to hit at maximum range. Currently a Tier 6-8 German destroyer cannot outrun, outgun, outfight or even hide from a faster Russian destroyer for example. When a Russian destroyer commander has the "Radio Location" skill it becomes even more unbalanced, because a German destroyer cannot then even remain "hidden" when not firing her guns and she will be run down and hopelessly outgunned due to useless German destroyer gun AP "over penetration" low damage or useless German destroyer gun low HE damage. Even the German 150 mm armed destroyers simply cannot outgun any non German destroyer it faces in her tier. As a result there is a whole new December 2016 released German destroyer line which generally is good at nothing compared to the other nationality destroyer lines: - its guns are inferior - its spotting range is inferior - its speed is inferior - its smoke is inferior - its damage resistance potential is inferior - its turning rate is inferior The only decent things about the German destroyers (torpedoes and hydro acoustics equipment) cannot compensate for all these disadvantages. Now I cannot say that I am surprised by all this in WOWS, since for example the German cruisers in WOWS are also generally inferior to other nationality cruisers in my experience both playing with and playing against them, and that has been the case for many, many months by now. From a money making point of view this is pretty bad, since I for example have no interest in wasting time or spending money on playing the German destroyer or cruiser line in WOWS. As an European, the only European ships which I have to choose from are Russian, German, British ships and one Polish and one French ship. The Polish and Russian ships in WOWS which to a degree are post WW2 ships have little attraction for me, not because of an anti-Polish/Russian bias but simply because their role in WW2 was not a major one compared to most central and western European nations. I also find that post WW2 or even fantasy/paper design ships should have no place in WOWS, but I understand why for example post WW2 Russian and Chinese ships were implemented in WOWS by a de facto Russian company. The British light cruiser line in WOWS also cannot really impress me to spend time and money on. Creating under performing and/or inferior (central and western) European ships in WOWS is bad for your business in my opinion since you largest potential consumer base, central and western Europe, are left with many generally unimpressive, lacklustre or even inferior central and western European ships which are to a degree not even fun to play versus Japanese, USA, Russian, Polish etc. ships in WOWS. As it currently stands, the German cruiser and destroyer line are generally unimpressive if not downright inferior compared to their USA, Japanese, Russian etc. counterparts in WOWS. To a lesser degree this is also the case with the British light cruiser line. Apparently the management of WOWS thought that releasing a new German destroyer line with clearly overall inferior "characteristics" was a good idea. The question is, will the inferior design characteristics of the WOWS German destroyers also apply to the new Russian destroyers to be released in WOWS? As the rumour goes the German destroyers in WOWS can be spotted at long range because the management of WOWS supposedly wants to eliminate "stealth firing" in the future which currently however still can be done by practically all destroyers in WOWS EXCEPT for the German ones. Not to mention the many cruisers which till today can also still "stealth" fire. While I applaud wanting to get rid of "stealth firing" in general, simply because it is no fun being targeted by a ship which you cannot fire back at, it is more than a little unfair/biased to apply this ONLY to the German destroyers and not the other nationality destroyers in the game. The newly to be released Russian destroyers should also suffer from the same disadvantages as the German destroyers in WOWS if the management of WOWS wants to make clear that the inferior German destroyer line is simply a case of the German destroyers being the first to falling victim to new destroyer design principles in WOWS. If however the newly to be released Russian destroyers will also be as superior to the German ones as the currently already implemented Russian destroyers are, than something else is at work. And that is a nasty bias for which there is no place in a game in 2017. I have USA and Japanese destroyers up till Tier 6 and can say that they are generally fun to play. Playing the German destroyers in WOWS is by contrast no fun at all and like playing with a distinct handicap. The Tier 6-8 German destroyers in WOWS cannot outgun, cannot outrun (most), cannot outfight, cannot outspot almost any other nationality destroyer it faces in her tier. So the question is: will the new Russian destroyers also get the bad characteristics treatment that the new German destroyers have been given in WOWS or, will the WOWS management give the new Russian destroyers the same preferential treatment that the current Russian destroyers have versus the new German destroyers? Will the new Russian destroyers also be spotted from long range when firing their guns like the German destroyers or not? And will the new Russian destroyers also be outgunned by other destroyers due to bad AP and bad HE performance by all other nationality destroyers like the new German destroyers are or not?

Looking at the statistics posted earlier, the Premium "USS ARIZONA" "of course" outperforms both "HMS WARSPITE" and "DUNKERQUE" at Tier 6. I am not impressed when I face "HMS WARSPITE" or "DUNKERQUE" in WOWS, which is why I did not buy them by the way. I will take a look at the new WOWS version 6 and the new commander skills to see how that plays out, but more likely than not that also means the end of playing WOWS for a while for me. The British and French battleships might bring me back, but I expect them to be just as underwhelming as the British cruisers and German destroyers are in WOWS. It appears that WOWS wants to cater mostly to the Russian audience, which I can understand even if I do not agree with it as an EU customer, but after that they amazingly cater to the North American audience at the expense of the European one. If one only looks at the battleship Premiums (and ignoring the silly Arpeggio battleships), and battleships being the most played class, this 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 in her Tier) - French Premium battleships: 1 (Inferior to the USA Premium in her Tier) - Italian Premium battleships: 0 So in all Tiers where there are competing Premium battleships the USA wins in all cases, EXCEPT the one case where the competition is a Premium Russian battleship. Clearly in the fully un-authentic world view of WOWS designers the best battleship designers in the world are: 1. Russia 2. USA 3. Japan 4. France 5. Great Britain 6. Germany That sounds like a game I would want to spend more money on. Believe it or not, but I actually look forward to the release of the vaunted and "mighty" USSR battleships, if only to grab a bag of popcorn and see the complaints on the North American forum when the USA Premium battleships will be surpassed by USSR battleships in every Tier. Amusing as that might be, that will not get me back to playing WOWS again however.

Just for fun, some information on the many credible sources which provide information of the 38 cm gun rate of fire of the battleships of the "BISMARCK" class. The data comes from books written by naval experts, like this one for example: Loosely translated: "The rate of fire per gun was 18 seconds; it took that amount of time from loading and firing to ejecting the empty shell case. Calculated this meant a purely theoretical rate of fire of circa 3.3 rounds per gun and per minute." The data according to Breyer and Koop comes from the Historical Archives of the firm of Friedrich Krupp GmbH. The firm of Krupp was responsible for the design and production of the 38 cm guns and turrets. Breyer and Koop are also used as sources by Wikipedia, so the developers at WOWS should at least have an idea that these authoritative sources exist. The fourth artillery officer and highest ranked survivor of the battleship "BISMARCK", Burkard Freiherr von Müllenheim Rechberg, in his book (Dutch, first edition) also states that the "BISMARCK" could fire his 38 cm guns at a rate of fire of 3 rounds per minute. So the information is hardly novel or secret. So what is authentic (= conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features) regarding the German 38 cm naval guns? - Demonstrably the German 38 cm guns were the most accurate battleship naval guns both in training and in combat. - Demonstrably the German 38 cm guns had the highest rate of fire of any naval gun of 38 cm or higher calibre. Instead the 38 cm armed "BISMARCK" and "TIRPITZ" get an unauthentic rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute in WOWS. This is equal to all Tier 7-10 USA battleships armed with 40.6 cm guns in WOWS. This puts "BISMARCK" and "TIRPITZ" in WOWS at an unauthentic disadvantage since the German battleships not only do less Alpha Armour-Piercing round damage in WOWS but they also do not have the higher rate of fire which would compensate for doing less Alpha damage. To make matters even more unauthentic the USA battleships have been given more accurate main guns (less dispersion) than the "BISMARCK" and "TIRPITZ" which they demonstrably did not have in real life based on German and USA battleship real world training results and combat data as mentioned earlier. The Tier 7 "USS COLORADO", Tier 8 "NORTH CAROLINA", Tier 9 "USS IOWA, TIER 9 "USS MISSOURI, TIER 9 "USS MISSOURI" and Tier 10 "USS MONTANA" with their 9+ 40.6 cm guns all get an unauthentic and undeserved rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute which they never could achieve in real life, neither in training nor in combat. And these USA battleships have a maximum Armour Piercing (AP) Alpha damage of 12,200, 13,100 and 13,500 compared to the two Tier 8 German battleships 11,600 maximum AP Alpha damage. In other words with the same rate of fire, more guns and better accuracy the USA battleships do with each hit 5%, 13% and 16% more damage respectively than the German 38 cm armed Tier 8 battleships. What makes things worse is that the Tier 8 "BISMARCK" and "TIRPITZ" due to WOWS matchmaking are mostly entered into Tier 9 and 10 matches where this USA unauthentic gunnery advantage becomes even more important. An example to put these figures into perspective. If for example you have two WOWS battleships which have the following characteristics: - Battleship "USS NORTH CAROLINA": Hull Hit Points value 66,000, Main Guns 9, Main Gun Minimum Hit Point Damage value 1,310, Rounds per Minute 2, Chance to hit per Minute 22.5%. - Battleship "TIRPITZ": Hull Hit Points value 69,300, Main Guns 8, Main Gun Minimum Hit Point Damage value 1,160, Rounds per Minute 2.3, Chance to hit per Minute 20%. Then fourteen minutes of combat between these two battleships would yield this minimum inflicted damage result: - Battleship "USS NORTH CAROLINA": 9 Main Guns x 1,310 Base Damage x2 Rounds x14 Minutes x22.5% Chance to hit= 74,277 Minimum Hit Point Damage inflicted. - Battleship TIRPITZ": 8 Main Guns x 1,160 Base Damage x2.3 Rounds x14 Minutes x20% Chance to hit= 59,763 Minimum Hit Point Damage inflicted. The fact that Battleship "TIRPITZ has 5% more Hull Hit Points than Battleship "USS NORTH CAROLINA" is fully negated by the ability of Battleship "USS NORTH CAROLINA" to inflict a substantial 24% more Minimum Hit Point Damage. In fact with equal commander/player skill (in aiming, angling, salvo chasing etc.) the "USS NORTH CAROLINA" will always prevail, unless the Random Number Generator by chance gives "TIRPITZ" some citadel hits on the "USS NORTH CAROLINA". Of course in WOWS ships rarely if ever engage in 1 to 1 duels for 14 minutes and matches are generally decided by the actions of all the players and not by one ship, but that does not change these facts. So in WOWS not only do "BISMARCK" and "TIRPITZ" get fewer main guns (totally authentic), do less damage per hit (arguably unauthentic) but they are also given less accuracy (totally unauthentic) and a low rate of fire (totally unauthentic) compared to the Tier 7 to Tier 10 USA battleships. That is not balance, that is bias. That we are used to it by now in 2017, does not change the fact that this is not really "balance" but it instead is "bias". It will be interesting to see what "treatment" the French and British line/tree battleships will get in WOWS, whether they too will be inferior to the USA Premium battleships as indeed the only two French and British battleships already are which are in WOWS now ("DUNKERQUE", "HMS WARSPITE"). Currently the USA (Premium) battleships in WOWS are un-authentically and thus undeservedly the best performers in Tier 5, Tier 6 and Tier 9. Maybe when the Premium "USS ALABAMA" is released it will also become the best performer in Tier 8, it certainly would not surprise me.

So what exactly is the death of high Tier 8-10 Japanese destroyers? And by that I mean what enemy SHIP do you fear the most in your Tier 8-10 Japanese destroyer?

Like Zao?

One has to let the people of WOWS know what you think of what they do and where one draws the line. It is fine if WOWS does not budge with their "TIRPITZ", but then neither will my wallet. Due to "PRINZ EUGEN" suffering from the same problems as the Premium as "TIRPITZ" does, I have already decided not to buy her. Other ships on my WOWS "to buy" list are: - "HMS HOOD" - "HMS VANGUARD" - "HMS RODNEY" - "GRAF ZEPPELIN" But as long as "TIRPITZ" stays as comparatively ridiculously weak for a Premium as she is now,I will not financially run the risk of this happening again. So what they are doing over at WOWS is penny wise, but pound foolish. As long as WOWS gives the "TIRPITZ this bad treatment, with all new battleships becoming stronger and "TIRPITZ" being left behind as the ONLY Premium battleship to be practically the worst battleship in her Tier, they will not see one more dime from me. I already stopped playing WOWS around March, then the German battleships release brought me back in August, only to stop again in August when I saw that "TIRPITZ" in effect had become comparatively even weaker than she was before. The Admiral Graf Spee brought me back again to WOWS, but now that this is over and I have examined "USS ALABAMA" and "USS MISSOURI" and the advantages they get as Premiums my interest again vanishes. So if they want to keep indirectly nerfing "TIRPITZ" with each new (Premium) battleship released then it will cost them.

First of all the "statistics" I quoted are valid. It is not important what the top 25% can do with a ship, but what "Joe Average" can do with it. "Joe Magnificent" can win and outperform others with any ship. So how "Joe Average" does with a ship is the yard stick to measure by, not how "Joe Magnificent" does. Take a good look at the statistics I quoted earlier. EVERY and I repeat EVERY Premium battleship from Tier 5 to Tier 9 significantly outperforms its line/tree equivalent and indeed is the top battleship in its own Tier. That is a fact. All of the Premiums battleships, EXCEPT for "TIRPITZ. If I were to follow your reasoning then ONLY "TIRPITZ" is used by "Joe Average" inferior players and ALL the other Premiums battleships are played by "Joe Magnificent". That of course is nonsense, Premiums battleships are played in equal numbers by both above average, average and below average players. And the statistics make that clear. Let us take a look at you for example. And let us assume that you are a "Joe Magnificent", meaning an above average player. Here are your statistics on "BISMARCK" and "TIRPITZ", as you can see you SIGNIFICANTLY outperform your "TIRPITZ" in your "BISMARCK". Enough said. I cannot speak for the logic or reasons behind what other people on the forum ask for on any topic since I am not a mind reader. I can however speak about my own motives. And they are: - "Authenticity" (= conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features). - "Equal treatment of all WOWS Premiums in terms of 1944+ equipment state". - "Equal treatment of all WOWS Premiums concerning the difference between the line/tree ship and the Premium equivalent". I play WOWS for the historical ships, I am not interested in ships being depicted in an unauthentic manner, WOWS may be arcade but that does not mean it has to turn into PAC MAN either. Ships should be treated equally when they have the exact same weapons on board, which indeed is the case with every Premium battleship EXCEPT for “TIRPITZ”. Buffing a ship so I can do better with her is something I am NOT interested in. I am interested in “authenticity” and equal treatment of Premium battleships across the board in WOWS. So putting one Premium, and a very expensive one at that, at a severe disadvantage at its Tier as opposed to other Premiums and its line/tree equivalent at its Tier is simply unacceptable. All USA and British Premium battleships generally have with their 1944+ Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA) equipment state in WOWS. But “TIRPITZ” is stuck with its weakest 1941/1942 AAA setting. Considering that no ship in history, and certainly no battleship in history, EVER was the intended target of so many concentrated air attacks (26 !) and by so many aircraft (in total 1.101 !) against it, this is not only unfair but it also detracts from one thing “TIRPITZ” was demonstrably good at: beating off and surviving air attacks. Especially “TIRPITZ” demonstrated to be immune to being sunk by carrier aircraft even when they were sent by three aircraft carriers at the same time. So instead of putting the Premium “TIRPITZ” in a hybrid 1941/1942 equipment setting in WOWS, and having the Premium “USS TEXAS”, “USS ALABAMA”, “USS MISSOURI”, “WARPSITE” et al in WOWS in a 1944+ equipment setting I would like to see “TIRPITZ” ALSO brought up till 1944 standards. And more so, it should be at least equal to “BISMARCK” in WOWS (gun ranges, consumables etc.). Premium “USS MISSOURI” is superior to “USS IOWA”, “USS TEXAS” is superior to “USS NEW YORK” etc. so there is no argument for not making “TIRPITZ” superior to “BISMARCK” too in WOWS. To make it clear: - Premium Tier 5 battleship "USS TEXAS" has her 1945 AAA setup in WOWS. - Line/Tree Tier 7 battleship "USS COLORADO" has her 1944+ AAA setup in WOWS. - Line/Tree Tier 8 battleship "USS NORTH CAROLINA" has her 1944+ AAA setup in WOWS. - Premium Tier 8 battleship "USS ALABAMA ST" has her 1944+ AAA setup in WOWS. - Line/Tree Tier 9 battleship "USS IOWA" has her 1944+ AAA setup in WOWS. - Line/Tree Tier 9 battleship "USS MISSOURI"i has her 1944+ AAA setup in WOWS. - Premium Tier 8 battleship "TIRPITZ" has her 1941/1942 AAA setup in WOWS. - Line/Tree Tier 8 battleship "BISMARCK" has an unauthentic fantasy AAA setup which is superior to the "TIRPITZ" setup in WOWS. 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 historical 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 “USS MISSOURI” in WOWS has better armour, better accuracy (without any real authentic real world justification for it) and several other extras which put “USS MISSOURI” way ahead of “USS IOWA”. The question beckons: why is “TIRPITZ” inferior to “BISMARCK” in WOWS? Whereas “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 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 less range on its 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": But instead of authenticity which could be easily implemented, we get the largest and best German battleship in real life actually being outperformed by older German battleships (“BISMARCK” et al) in WOWS. The most accurate battleship of WW2 in WOWS is transformed into being the least accurate one in WOWS. And that is compared to both older German battleships (“BISMARCK” et al) and all the other WOWS battleships at tier 8. It is more than strange that in WOW the “TIRPITZ” is actually the most inaccurate battleship at level 8-10 in WOW and even less accurate than her “brother” “BISMARCK” (“Bismarck was referred to in the male form by his commander). This is not only in WOW horizontal dispersion (276 meters), but also in WOW vertical dispersion (the value of which is kept secret by WOW) and the WOW sigma factor. In the primary source German wartime GKdos-100 files the following naval gunnery expected hit percentages against battleship size targets based on the evaluation of actual gunnery training firing exercises are listed: - 1.8 hits per minute and 11.1% hits at 300 hm (30 km) for “TIRPITZ” ´s eight 15"/38 cm naval guns (=.225 hits per gun per minute) when firing at a rate of only one round fired per minute. - 1.4 hits per minute and 6.4% hits at 300 hm (30 km) for “SCHARNHORST's” nine 11"/28 cm naval guns (=.156 hits per gun per minute) when firing at a rate of only one round fired per minute. - 0.7 hits per minute and 4.8% hits at 300 hm (30 km) for “ADMIRAL SCHEER´s” 11"/six 28 cm naval guns (=.117 hits per gun per minute) when firing at a rate of only one round fired per minute. These figures should be compared with similar primary source figures for US Navy battleship gunnery training in the 1930 to 1941 period. The US Navy constructive target for their 1930-1941 figures is reported to be aircraft carrier or battleship size, so they are at least reasonably comparable. Hits per gun per minute for US 14" (35.6cm) naval guns at ~33000 yards was close to .10 hits per gun per minute and they are 20% higher for US 16" (40.6 cm) naval guns, so the US Navy training results are roughly on the same confidence level as was “ADMIRAL SCHEER´s” older 28.3 cm credited with and short of what the new “SCHARNHORST” 28.3 cm and “TIRPITZ” 38 cm naval guns were credited for. Compared to the primary source German wartime GKdos-100 gunnery training firing exercise files the primary source 1930-1941 US Navy gunnery training firing exercise data figures can be translated into this: - 1.2 hits per minute at 33,000 yards (301 hm / 30 km) for “USS NEW MEXICO's” twelve 14"/35.6 cm naval guns (=.10 hits per gun minute) when firing at a rate of only one round fired per minute - 1.0 hits per minute at 33,000 yards (301 hm / 30 km) for “USS NORTH CAROLINA's” nine 16"/40.6 cm naval guns (=.12 hits per gun minute) when firing at a rate of only one round fired per minute To put this 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 which they never actually could attain in real life. 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.

Actually the story is a little bit different and more complex. In 1932 three 2x3 28cm armed "Deutschland" class heavy cruisers (initially called "Panzerschiffe", literally "armoured ships", but later redesignated heavy cruisers in Germany) were under construction in Germany: "Deutschland" (later renamed "Lützow"), "Admiral Scheer" and "Admiral Graf Spee". A fourth "Deutschland" class heavy cruiser was planned, but in 1932 the French "Dunkerque" class initiated design discussions which led to the development of an improved "Deutschland" class variant which should be able to counter the "Dunkerque" class. In 1933 Germany's newly elected Chancellor allowed construction of the fourth improved "Deutschland" class ship, but he stipulated that she was not to get anything larger than 28 cm guns to avoid upsetting the French and British governments. From 1933 to 1934 the improved "Deutschland" class design, which was supposed to counter the "Dunkerque" class, was finalised and two ships of this design had their keel laid down. In June 1934 however the conclusion was drawn that the 2x3 28cm guns of these ships would not be able to counter the "Dunkerque" class. It was then decided to increase the armament to 3x3 28cm guns. In July 1934 it was concluded that the improved "Deutschland" class heavy cruiser could not support 3x3 28cm gun turrets and consequently the two ships were broken up in 1934 before they were completed. The "Deutschland" class replacement design considerations and discussions from 1934 to 1935 made clear that even 3x3 28cm guns would not suffice against the "Dunkerque" class. In June 1935 the Anglo German Naval Agreement (A.G.N.A.) was signed between Great Britain and Germany. The A.G.N.A. effectively allowed Germany to build a balanced fleet the size of 35% of the British Royal Navy in displacement. The A.G.N.A. in effect officially cancelled the naval stipulations of the 1918 "Dictate of Versailles" and it allowed Germany to build all classes of naval ships, including Dreadnought type battleships, as long as the total tonnage of the German navy did not exceed 35% tonnage of the British Royal Navy. The calibre limit of 28 cm was also cancelled in the A.G.N.A. so as a result Germany was allowed to build battleships with any calibre as long as the 35% tonnage limit was not exceeded. The A.G.N.A. was negotiated by Great Britain without consulting France and this in effect was felt to be a stab in the back in France, since the A.G.N.A. effectively cancelled the infamous "Dictate of Versailles", the document which France held so dear in order to keep Germany under control. As an additional insult for France the Naval Pact was signed on 18 June 1935, the 120th anniversary of the famous Battle of Waterloo in which British and Prussian (German) troops defeated the French army under Napoleon. As a result of the A.G.N.A. a larger calibre than 28 cm was allowed to be used in the German Navy, and consequentially the German Chancellor in 1935 allowed the Navy designers to choose whatever calibre they desired for the new ships: 30.5 cm, 33 cm, 35 cm or 38 cm. Even though the Navy designers wanted a larger calibre for the two new ships, which now were allowed to be battleships of the "Scharnhorst" class thanks to the A.G.N.A. and not heavy cruisers, it was concluded that it would take an estimated 16 to 22 months to design and complete new larger calibre naval guns. So in 1935 Naval High Command instead proposed to use the 28 cm cannons which were already available and for the time being install 3x3 28cm guns on the new battleships of the "Scharnhorst" class, PROVIDED that the battleships were designed in such a way that they could later, when the 4x2 38cm armed "Bismarck" class battleships were operational, be up-armed with 35 cm guns. In this way Germany would at least have two "Scharnhorst" class battleships operational around 1939, even though they would for the time being be under-armed with 3x3 28cm guns. In May 1935 it was decided that these two new battleships of the "Scharnhorst" class would be up-armed not with 35 cm guns but with the new 38 cm guns which were then being designed for the even newer and larger "Bismarck" class battleships. It was estimated that the two "Scharnhorst" class battleships could be up-armed with 3x2 38cm guns sometime after 1941 when the two battleships of the "Bismarck" class were estimated to become operational. In discussion with the firm of Krupp in 1935 it was determined that it would be possible to mount the newly designed three two-gun 38 cm turrets in the barbettes of the three three-gun 28 cm turrets of the "Scharnhorst" class battleships. The newly designed 38 cm gun turrets would not however be available before 1940, so the "Scharnhorst" class battleships were completed with the already available 28 cm gun turrets. By September 1939 the two battleships of the "Scharnhorst" class had been commissioned and they were finally more or less operational but at the same time still undergoing necessary modernizations and improvements. When war broke out in September 1939 there could be no question of decommissioning and up-arming the two new 3x3 28cm armed "Scharnhorst" class battleships (which had been named "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau") because Germany only had two operational battleships to begin with. The up-arming of these two "Scharnhorst" class battleships could only be done after the new 4x2 38cm armed battleships "Bismarck" and "Tirpitz" were operational, which was not expected before 1941. So that meant that for the time being "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" would have to soldier on with their 28 cm guns. After concluding Operation "Cerberus" in February 1942 the "Gneisenau" went into dry dock in order to examine the state of the damage she had incurred during the operation. It was concluded that the damage was quite minor and that she could be repaired in about two weeks time. Navy regulations stipulated that all ammunition was to be removed when the ship was in dry dock, but the Fleet Commander felt that it was not necessary and only time consuming, which would lead to a longer period in dry dock. An Allied bomber attack in February 1942 saw splinters from a bomb enter the gun powder magazine of A-turret via a hatch which had been deliberately left open for ventilation purposes when in dry dock. Normally this would not have been a problem because in dry dock the ammunition was never to stored on board the ship, the Fleet Commander had however ordered the ammunition to be kept aboard. The bomb splinters caused an explosion in the A-turret powder magazine and a subsequent fire which damaged A-turret and caused fire damage to the bow. Instead of repairing the heavily damaged A-turret, it was decided to instead finally up-arm the "Gneisenau" with the planned 38 cm guns. So "Gneisenau" in April 1942 steamed under its own power to eastern Germany to be decommissioned and up-armed with 3x2 38cm guns. It was estimated by the Navy planners that "Gneisenau" would be up-armed and ready for service in about 12 months time, so the up-armed 3x2 38cm "Gneisenau" was scheduled to be commissioned in April 1943. To reduce draught "Gneisenau" was to get a larger and 10 meter longer bow among other improvements. In December 1942 however the failure of the Operation "Regenbogen" led to an order to decommission and scrap all battleships and heavy cruisers. As a result of this order in February 1943 all up-arming work on "Gneisenau" came to a halt. By then the old bow had been removed, the new larger and longer bow was about to be installed, two of the three 28 cm turrets were sent to Norway and practically all other armament had by then been removed from "Gneisenau" to facilitate the up-arming with 38 cm guns. Even though the order to decommission and scrap the battleships and heavy cruisers was later cancelled, this did not effect the already decommissioned "Gneisenau". Even though "Gneisenau" was never scrapped by the German Navy, the last work required to complete the up-arming of "Gneisenau" was never ordered to be completed after February 1943.

Do not buy the “Tirpitz”! Do not buy the Prinz Eugen! You will be financially ripped off by WOWS if you do, compared to other Tier 8 (battle)ships and compared to other Premium (battle)ships in their respective Tiers. I bought the Premium “Tirpitz” in January 2016 for 70+ Euros. I bought the Premium battleship “Tirpitz” because of my interest in real world historical naval warships in general, and also because of my interest in the real world “Tirpitz” in particular. Compared to other Tier 8 battleships “Tirpitz” is underperforming and especially when compared to “Bismarck. I am not interested in making credits (silver doubloons), nor in “unlocking” ships which do not interest me, nor in getting (Free) Experience Points, nor in “training” commanders for other ships etcetera. If I really want a historical ship in WOWS, then I want it out of interest in their real world equivalents and then I will buy it with real world money since I rather spend my time playing historical ships in WOWS which interest me. I do not want to use a ship in WOWS only because it has “good” statistics in WOWS compared to other ships. I choose a ship for historical reasons and personal interest. Ships need to be balanced in a fair manner compared to its WOWS Tier and Premium equivalents however and also be authentic (= conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features) in my opinion. The WOWS “Tirpitz” is currently neither balanced fairly nor presented in an authentic manner, but the other WOWS Premiums are presented in an authentic manner and are even superior to in their respective Tiers. Based on my 1200+ PVP matches in “Tirpitz” and my in-game experience, I am of the opinion that in “Tirpitz” versus “Bismarck” duels at all ranges I would say “Bismarck” is superior to “Tirpitz” given commanders of equal skill in both ships. By the time “Bismarck” is in torpedo range of “Tirpitz”, the “Bismarck” medium artillery already has done a lot of damage and started several fires. A good “Bismarck” commander will also now how to zigzag to avoid the “Tirpitz” torpedoes unless they are fired at roughly 3 Km or less range. There is however no way to evade the longer range “Bismarck” medium artillery. Also the “Bismarck” heavy artillery seems to do more damage. This also seems to be supported by some statistics which float around online: Based on the above data “Bismarck” in WOWS not only heavily OUTPERFORMS “Tirpitz”, but even worse “Tirpitz” is INFERIOR to all other Tier 8 battleships in the key areas of damage inflicted and kill/death ratio! Even more remarkable is that “Bismarck” heavy artillery is on average significantly more accurate than that of “Tirpitz” with a main battery hit rate of 28% to 24%. When one considers that the Premium “Tirpitz” has cost most players on average 70+ Euros (from 45 to 120 Euros depending on the package selected) it is not only amazing how inferior “Tirpitz” is to “Bismarck” but also a bloody disgrace and a blatant financial rip off by WOWS. To add insult to injury “Bismarck” in WOWS gets a “Hydro Acoustic Search” consumable which “Tirpitz” does not get. With the Premium USS Missouri it is the other way round, like it is with the Premium “Atago”, those two ships get a consumable (respectively “Surveillance Radar” and “Repair Party”) which their line/tree equivalents (“Iowa”/”Mogami”) do NOT get. But with “Tirpitz” it is the other way round where its Tier 8 line equivalent (“Bismarck”) not only out-ranges “Tirpitz” even though it actually has THE EXACT SAME medium artillery and heavy Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) but “Bismarck” ALSO has a “Hydro Acoustics Search” consumable which “Tirpitz” does not get. What is interesting to note is that “Tirpitz” in real life had special medium artillery “burst” ammunition later in the war which allowed “Tirpitz” to use its medium artillery (12x 15 cm) in the Anti-Aircraft role, something which “Bismarck” could not do because of sinking in 1941. In real life “Bismarck”, ”Tirpitz”, “Scharnhorst”, “Prinz Eugen” etc. had several state of the art “Hydro Acoustic Search” devices on board. They had two (one port and one starboard) passive underwater listening devices called “Gruppenhorchgerät” (GHG), which could detect torpedoes and the sound of ship propellers to a maximum range of up till 40 km (!) and they allowed the ships to safely evade torpedoes if they were fired up till 2,000 meters range from the ship. As a backup for the GHG there was the passive underwater listening device “Navigationshorchgerät” (NHG) which also allowed the ships to safely evade torpedoes if they were fired up till 2,000 meters range. Finally “Bismarck”, ”Tirpitz”, “Scharnhorst”, “Prinz Eugen” had the active underwater detection device (sonar) “Sonderfernsteueranlage” (S-Anlage) which was specifically created for Kriegsmarine heavy cruisers and battleships. So in no way was “Tirpitz” inferior to “Bismarck” in “Hydro Acoustic Search” devices. Aircraft torpedoes incidentally were generally preferred to be released 1,000 to 500 meters from the target ship by the torpedo aircraft. “Bismarck” in 1941 had three gunnery computer linked FuMO Geräte (radars) which had a range of up till 25 km against sea targets. “Tirpitz” by 1944 had gunnery computer linked FuMO Geräte (radars) with a maximum range of up till 44 km against sea targets and additionally a special FuMO Gerät (radar) for aircraft detection up till 250 km range. Both ships had “blind” fire capability due to their advanced radars and gunnery computers. If anything, the “Tirpitz” was more modern and advanced than “Bismarck” however. So with all Premium WOWS battleships you are rewarded with something extra but with the Premium “Tirpitz” you are punished with INFERIOR medium artillery and AAA Damage Per Second and inferior consumable capability. This is outrageous because in effect WOWS punishes its Premium “Tirpitz” buyers who have spent on average 70+ Euros by making the line/tree Tier 8 equivalent “Bismarck” superior. In contrast it rewards all WOWS Premium USA battleship buyers by making the USA Premium battleships SUPERIOR to the USA line/tree equivalents. In fact EVERY Premium battleship in WOWS outperforms its national line counterpart EXCEPT for “Tirpitz”. This is not only a slap in the face for all those WOWS customers who bought “Tirpitz” for on average 70+ Euros, but also ridiculous because the 1941 commissioned “Tirpitz” was faster, significantly larger, more modern, better equipped, in some areas even better armoured than the 1940 commissioned “Bismarck”. The “Tirpitz” was the largest battleship ever built in Europe and looking at its equipment state the most advanced, in WOWS it finishes last in Tier 8 behind its older sister “Bismarck” however. It gets even worse for “Tirpitz”. For example ALL USA Premium battleships and even the British Premium battleship (Warspite) 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. If “Tirpitz” did one thing in the war, it was shoot down a lot of aircraft and did so while being mostly alone and WITHOUT having the added Anti-Aircraft Artillery protection provided by other warships which for example the USA, Japanese and British battleships all had. To further add insult to injury the WOWS “Bismarck” has superior Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) capability compared to the Premium “Tirpitz” due to the “Bismarck” hull upgrade which gives “Bismarck” a complete fantasy late-war AAA equipment state which in WOWS is superior to the 1941-1942 AAA equipment of the WOWS “Tirpitz”. The real world 1944 “Tirpitz” however had an AAA capability which no other German battleship ever remotely matched or exceeded, least of all the real world “Bismarck”. It would be more than balanced, appropriate and authentic if WOWS development gave the “Tirpitz” the same authentic late-war (1944) equipment state which they have given to EVERY WOWS Premium USA and British battleship. To give “Tirpitz” an appropriate authentic representation in WOWS its Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) would have to be upgraded to the authentic 1944 equipment status. In real life a total of 26 (!) Allied air attacks were launched against the real world “Tirpitz” by well over 1,101 (!) Allied aircraft. Those 1,101 Allied aircraft only managed to score about 21 hits on "Tirpitz". The Allies admitted the loss of at least 37 aircraft to the generally solitary “Tirpitz”. In times of war the governmental policy on reporting losses/victories as used by the Allies was to generally exaggerate (double or more) enemy losses and under-report their own losses. The “Tirpitz” never received any friendly fighter aircraft support during all these air attacks, except for one time from one of its own floatplane fighter aircraft. Here some more WOWS comparisons, note that the Premium (USA) battleships generally ALL SIGNIFICANTLY OUTPERFORM their line/tree USA equivalents in terms of damage inflicted, kill/death ratio and heavy artillery accuracy (MBH). All Premiums perform better EXCEPT for the Premium “Tirpitz” which finishes last and which is the most expensive of them all and also the most sold Premium in WOWS. Tier 5: Premium “USS Texas” outperforms line/tree “USS New York” and indeed all other Tier 5 battleships. Tier 6: Premium “USS Arizona” outperforms line/tree “USS New Mexico” and indeed all other Tier 6 battleships. Tier 7: Premium “Scharnhorst” outperforms line/tree “Gneisenau” and indeed all other Tier 7 battleships. Tier 8: line/tree “Bismarck” outperforms Premium “Tirpitz” and indeed all other Tier 8 battleships. (SEE THE FIRST IMAGE IN THIS POST) Tier 9: Premium “Missouri” outperforms line/tree “Iowa” and indeed all other Tier 9 battleships. I also own the Premium “Scharnhorst” and even though I have played only about 200+ PVP matches in her, my “Scharnhorst” statistics are also better than those of my “Tirpitz”. Even though I am much more experienced in my WOWS “Tirpitz” than in my WOWS “Scharnhorst”, I do better with “Scharnhorst”, sink more ships with her and most importantly of all have more fun with “Scharnhorst” than with “Tirpitz”. This is in no small part due to WOWS Development deliberately making the “Tirpitz” the worst performing Premium battleship due to small but consistent successive nerfs and not implementing buffs which other battleships have received ("Bismarck" et al). Just compare this with how Premium “USS Missouri” is made superior to line/tree “USS Iowa for example in so many subtle ways. So instead of “Pay To Win”, with Premium “Tirpitz” in WOWS it is “Pay To Lose” in terms of damage inflicted and kill/death ratio thanks to WOWS Development, this becomes clear when “Tirpitz” is statistically compared to the preferential treatment ALL the other WOWS Premium battleships have received compared to their line/tree equivalents. What authentic and fair changes in January 2017 would make “Tirpitz” both authentic and worth the averaged 70 Euros players pay for it in WOWS compared to “Bismarck”: Give “Tirpitz” AT LEAST the same gunnery accuracy in WOWS as “Bismarck” has now, although better accuracy for "Tirpitz" would be authentic and appropriate based on the real world “Tirpitz” WW2 German Kriegsmarine Artillerie Versuch Kommados (AVK) gunnery training reports of 1942-1944. Since the Premium WOWS “Missouri” is more accurate than the line/tree “Iowa” this cannot be a problem either for “Tirpitz”. Give “Tirpitz” the same range for its medium artillery and AAA etc. as the WOWS “Bismarck” since these 15 cm and 10.5 cm weapons were the exact same on both ships in real life. Since the Premium WOWS “Missouri” has superior weapon characteristics than the similarly equipped line/tree “Iowa” this cannot be a problem either for “Tirpitz”. Give “Tirpitz” one extra consumable slot like “Bismarck” with “Hydro Acoustic Search” since they both had the same “Hydro Acoustic Seach” equipment in real life. Since the Premium WOWS “Missouri” has the same number of consumables as the similarly equipped line/tree “Iowa” this cannot be a problem either for “Tirpitz”. Give “Tirpitz” a 1.2 knot speed increase to 31.7 knots. In WOWS “Tirpitz” (30.5 knots) now is un-authentically slower than “Bismarck” (31 knots), whereas in real life “Tirpitz” was actually faster than “Bismarck”. Since the Premium WOWS “Missouri” is also faster than the line/tree “Iowa” this cannot be a problem either for “Tirpitz”. Upgrade the “Tirpitz” to 1944 equipment status like has also been done for ALL WOWS British and USA Tier 5 to 9 Premium battleships. This for example means increasing the current AAA capability of “Tirpitz” from the current 8x2 105mm, 12x1 20mm, 8x4 20mm, 8x2 37mm, to the 1944 AAA equipment state of 6x2 150mm (which used special AAA burst ammunition), 8x2 105mm, 8x1 20mm, 18x4 20mm, 8x2 37mm. Since the Premium WOWS “Missouri”/”Texas” also have superior AAA capability than the line/tree “Iowa”/”New York” this cannot be a problem either for “Tirpitz”. Give “Tirpitz” the better horizontal armour protection she had in real life compared to “Bismarck”. In real life the “Tirpitz” deck (weather deck) around the turrets and above the magazines was 80mm thick, not the 50mm which it is in WOWS currently. In real life only the deck (weather deck) above the turbines/boilers was 50mm thick. That means that at least 65% of the deck (weather deck) above the citadel was 80mm in real life and not the 50mm it is now in WOWS. The citadel deck (armoured deck) of “Tirpitz” was 100mm above the turbines, not the 80mm which it is in WOWS currently. (Note: The citadel deck (armoured deck) of “Tirpitz” in real life was 100mm above the magazines, which currently correctly also is 100mm in WOWS above the magazines, so no need for changes there.) Since the Premium WOWS “Missouri” also has better armour protection than the line/tree “Iowa” this cannot be a problem either for “Tirpitz”. Correct the current mistake in the WOWS “Bismarck” horizontal armour protection. The real life the “Bismarck”” deck (weather deck) around the turrets and above the magazines was 80mm thick, not the 50mm which it is in WOWS currently. In real life only the deck (weather deck) above the turbines/boilers was 50mm. That means that at least 65% of the deck (weather deck) above the citadel was 80mm in real life and not the 50mm it is now in WOWS. The citadel deck (armoured deck) of “Bismarck” in real life was 95mm above the turbines, not the 80mm which it is in WOWS currently. The citadel deck (armoured deck) of “Bismarck” in real life was 95mm above the magazines, not the 100mm which it is in WOWS currently. Since the Premium WOWS “Missouri” also has better armour protection than the line/tree “Iowa” this cannot be a problem either for “Tirpitz”. A lot of the real world "Tirpitz" and "Bismarck" data can be found in the many venerable books written by Gerhard Koop, Klaus-Peter Schmolke and Siegfried Breyer who were additionally also either former Kriegsmarine members or related to them. In addition to these authors there are more recent books written by Robert Gehringer, Antonio Bonomi (http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/) and John Asmussen (http://www.bismarck-class.dk/). From Amsussen’s site comes this top down image of the July 1944 Armament layout of “Tirpitz”: A 1944 WOWS “Tirpitz” would require some visual updates of the 3D-modell as well in order for her to look like the real world 1944 “Tirpitz”. That means that in addition to the above 1944 AAA armament layout, “Tirpitz” would need to have the FuMO 212/213 “Würzburg D” (aircraft detection radar) installed, which in real life had a 250 km aircraft detection range. Needless to say the FuMo 212/213 would only be a "Tirpitz" visual 3D-model update without any actual in-game game-play advantages:

@ nett40 If you use "Wyvern's Historical Naval Ensign and Signal Flags" mod you can see the German Realm Flag on WW1 era ships and the historically correct Japanese Flag. I believe there is even an option to not see any Swastika for the faint of heart whose tender souls are shattered by the mere sight of historically correct flags. The mod can be found here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/29296-mod-wyverns-historical-skin-workshop/

@ Freyr_A2 Oh, the poor royal palace/castle dwellers had a fire which they blame on the people (taxation) for not keeping their palace/castle in good order. Cry me a river, this is too rich! Let us compare that to all the poor Brits who have not had a decent house to live in at all the past 100 years up till now. Have you ever considered that nowadays super wealthy British families would no longer want to live in country estates for obvious reasons. For example for the same reason that they no longer daily drive in a 1906 Rolls Royce Silver Ghost. A wage slave defending his owners. Too funny. Nothing is more sad than a person of no means who becomes an apologist for the super wealthy. A propaganda induced conditioned reflex if I ever saw one. Get real and open you eyes. These super wealthy families live and have lived for centuries in a world of plenty and extreme wealth which 98% of the Brits cannot even imagine and you certainly will not see their real living conditions on the evening news or read about it the newspapers/magazines they own directly or indirectly. And there is a very good reason for that. Instead in the media you get apologists for the super wealthy which bring up fake arguments which are supposed to "defend" the super wealthy, for example that they supposedly helped "rebuild" Britain. Too funny and easily seen through when examined in detail. Joe Average built Britain and Joe Average rebuilt it. The super wealthy British families live off Joe Average, not the other way round. The last thing on the minds of the British super wealthy is how Joe Average lives, whether the houses of poor Brits in rural towns have been repaired from 1940s wartime damage or not is certainly not their concern. Britain only followed in ending child labour, paid worker vacation, schooling and health care for all after more or less all other north-western European nations had already introduced this. Guess which nation introduced this first in history by the way. It certainly was not Britain. And over the past few decades super wealthy British families have had the government "privatise" almost everything in Britain, meaning it moved from government ownership into "private" ownership. Guess who those "private" owners now are, it certainly is not British Joe Average. Not to mention that they moved British jobs to other continents because it lets them make more money no matter what the effects for Joe Average in Britain may be. Saving one British battleship (for example HMS Vanguard) in 1960 would for the ten wealthiest British families have been mere pennies (£560,000) compared to their vast global fortunes. The British Empire was there to make a few families amass incredible vast global wealth and power which they have till this day. The British Joe Average fought to establish and maintain that British Empire but he never received anything even remotely close to what the British super wealthy amassed from that same Empire. Over 90% of the British Empire wealth was and is concentrated in the hands of less than 5% of British citizens. These British super wealthy families never "prioritised" rebuilding Britain above preserving a battleship, what they instead "prioritised" was increasing their family power, wealth and influence. These families certainly never ever used their global vast wealth to rebuild Britain or make life better for Joe Average, but they could have used what would have amounted to mere pennies for them in relation to their vast fortune to donate one British battleship as a museum. Take the aforementioned Guy Anthony Vandervell for example, he invested a lot of time and effort in trying to make sure that he paid no taxes at all. And he was and is not the only one to do so. Priorities indeed. Take for example this sculpture "“L’Homme Qui Marche" by Swiss sculptor Alberto Giacometti which was sold at Sotheby’s for £ 65 million ($ 104.2 million), becoming the most expensive work of art ever sold at auction in Great Britain. It is of course part of a "private" collection. Now compare that to the recent case of British Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious. Unable to find a permanent home for the retired Royal Navy carrier HMS Illustrious, the British Ministry of Defence announced it would sell the ship for scrap to a Turkish firm. HMS Illustrious was reportedly sold to LEYAL Ship Recycling Ltd. for around £ 2 million ($ 2.64 million dollars). Commissioned in 1982, Illustrious was deployed at the conclusion of the first Gulf War and provided aid to the Philippines in response following Typhoon Haiyan. The carrier was decommissioned in 2014. The sale comes after three cities – Hull, Portsmouth and British Overseas Territory Gibraltar — had entered bids to convert the 22,000-ton ship into a museum. So the wealthy for their "private collection" can spend £ 65 million ($104.2 million) on that sculpture, but they cannot donate a comparatively measly tax-deductible £ 2 million ($ 2.64 million dollars) to turn HMS Illustrious into a museum ship. And that is also presumably because Britain is still being "rebuilt" by the wealthy British families as a result of the war of 1939-1945 you would probably argue no doubt. Do not make me laugh. It would have been mere pennies for the wealthiest British families in relation to their vast wealth to save at least one British battleship as a donation by them to the British people, there would have been no need to burden the tax payer with that. But they are too greedy to do so and too hypocritical to admit it, even when it concerns a very symbol of the British Empire which made possible and sustained the vast global wealth that these families posses: a 20th century British Royal Navy battleship. Back to British RN Battleships, which one would have been nicest to have had as a museum ship, some come to mind: 1. HMS Iron Duke, having seen actual combat in the largest naval battle of all time (1916 Jutland/Skagerrak) , the flagship for the fleet commander, Admiral John Jellicoe. 2. HMS Vanguard, being the largest and arguably the most impressive British battleship ever built. 3. HMS Rodney, having seen actual combat against Bismarck in 1941 and having 16" guns. 4. HMS King George V, having seen actual combat against Bismarck in 1941. 5. HMS Duke of York, having seen actual combat against Scharnhorst in 1943. 6. HMS Warspite, a veteran of two world wars. I think HMS Iron Duke would have been the best choice, followed by HMS Rodney as a runner up due to its 16" guns. Alas all are gone forever. HMS Rodney being scrapped:

Submarines? Are not these invisible ships, which fire torpedoes which are detected at short ranges and then difficult to evade? Wait a second... we have that in WOWS but there they are called destroyers there! The only difference is that submerged submarines around the 1940s generally sailed at about 7 knots when "invisible", but the "invisible" WOWS destroyers sail 30+ knots.

The wealthy Queen and her Royal Family and British wealthy families were and are nowhere near broke in 1945+ and it would have been fitting for the British Royal Family and British wealthy families to save at least one of the mighty British Royal Navy battleships for the British people as a museum. The British Royal Navy battleships which played such an important part in British Naval history and also in making sure that the Queen's fortune and those of other British wealthy families remained safe in two world wars. There really is no valid excuse for British wealthy families to not have saved one single British Royal Navy battleship with their vast, vast fortunes. Especially the British wealthy families who benefited so much from having a British Empire which was sustained in no small part thanks to the battleships of the British Royal Navy and the men who served on them. For example the last battleship ever built in the world and the largest ever built British battleship HMS Vanguard (commissioned in 1946) cost £11,530,503 to build. In 1960 the mighty HMS Vanguard was sold for scrap for the ridiculous amount of £600.000. Now compare that to the ten (!) USA battleships which have been preserved as museum ships, which was made possible in no small part by donations from wealthy USA families. Wealthy British families did not find it necessary to do the same for the British people and the British Royal Navy. Who could have donated money? Next of course to the wealthy British Royal Family, there are for example Viscount Nuffield of Morris cars, who donated over £30 million and still died a multimillionaire in 1963, and the shipping magnate Sir John Ellerman, who left £52 million in 1973, in addition to the many other wealthy British like Baron Victor Rothschild and Guy Anthony Vandervell et al. It was easily possible for these British wealthy families to save at least one British battleship for posterity, but the wealthy British families that have the vast wealth and titles to do so did not want to do it to give something back to their Royal Navy and to their British people which had protected their vast fortunes with life and limb in two world wars.

Let me guess, you are hoping for HMS Invincible, HMS Indefatigable, HMS Queen Mary and HMS Hood? On a serious note, I expect that HMS Hood will be added as a premium ship in WOWS and that HMS Renown will be added as a standard line/tree British "battleship".

I would much, much prefer to see historical real world naval commanders added in WOWS as "legendary" commanders instead of seeing more actors who pretend to be something they are not. If more actors are added to WOWS however, then there are actors to consider who played naval commander roles in other navies then the already represented USA Navy (Steven Seagal) in WOWS. For example. Actor Anthony Quayle (on the right in the image) as British Royal Navy Commodore (later Rear-Admiral) Henry Harwood, HMS Ajax in the movie "The Battle of the River Plate" (the actor on the left in the image is Ian Hunter as Captain Charles Woodhouse, HMS Ajax): Actor Jürgen Prochnow as German Kriegsmarine Kapitänleutnant ("Kaleun"), the commander of U-96 in the movie "Das Boot":

This topic reminds me of a poll I made some time ago. A while back I made a poll to get an idea what the opinion is of forum members on ship classes and play balance. The forum members of course only represent a vocal but very tiny minority of the people that are actually playing WOWS. Since most people post on the English language and German language WOWS forums I made the exact same poll on both of these WOWS language forums. To test consistency in answers some questions were repeated in a different form or mirrored in the poll. The questions in the German language forum are in the exact same order and in the exact same wording as the questions on the English language forum. The polls are to be found here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/50102-the-great-forum-member-opinion-poll/page__p__994655#entry994655 http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/50178-die-grosse-forum-mitglied-meinungsumfrage/page__p__996236#entry996236 Interestingly in the poll the key answers regarding game play value, threat value, all-round solitary play value, match influencing (winning) value etc. all point overwhelmingly to destroyers being better compared to other classes based on the answers of the respondents. The main difference between the English language and German language poll results is that the German language respondents prefer using battleships but acknowledge that destroyers are superior all-round. They consider destroyers the most dangerous opponents and cruisers the least dangerous opponents. Which makes sense based on current WOWS game mechanics from a battleship commander's point of view. The English language poll results also acknowledge destroyers as superior all-round, but the interesting difference with the German language forum is that the English language poll respondents prefer to use destroyers. They consider destroyers the most dangerous opponents and battleships the least dangerous opponents. Which makes sense based on current WOWS game mechanics from a destroyer commander's point of view. It also means that destroyer commanders consider other destroyers their most dangerous opponent. And that says something about balance between the classes. Both the German language and English language poll respondents consider that WOWS destroyers are the only class which can operate independently without the need for "help" by other classes, and that destroyers are the ship class in which a player has the best chance of actually influencing whether a match is won or lost. Enough people had responded to the polls to give at least a valuable indication on the opinion of ship classes etc. Sadly some WOWS destroyer players tried to sabotage the English language poll, presumably because they could see in what direction the answers to the poll were by then leading and maybe they feared that a nerf to destroyers might be implemented based on the results of the poll. Which leads me to this Commander skill topic and its poll. The poll in this topic reminds me of the poll I made where basically the majority of the pole respondents made clear that most English language forum users prefer destroyers in WOWS and at the same time they consider the destroyers superior all round. Which presumably plays a role in why they actually prefer them. This is all fine and nice, but it does place all the comments in this topic and the poll votes regarding the new commander skill (which points to a sector where a nearby ship is hidden) in a certain context. There seems to be some fear with the poll respondents in this topic that the preferred superior destroyers might lose their key superiority advantage over other classes, namely being practically invisible in WOWS. In other words, the forum members which for the main prefer destroyers naturally will tend to complain when their preferred ship class loses what objectively speaking is an unfair "cloaking" device mechanism compared to all other ship classes in the WOWS. I acquired the Kamikaze destroyer in January and played about halfway through the regular Japanese destroyer line. Over time I got bored with the hidden play style, not because of lack of success however. I enjoyed success with my Kamikaze destroyer especially, more so than in any battleship or cruiser. I however felt that the "cloaking device" offered me an unfair advantage, in terms of the ability to engage in or refuse combat, attack without being seen, capture zones, disappear at will, deny an area to an opponent by simply repeatedly blind firing torpedoes in a zone and especially when attacking battleships. Ah, the helpless battleships. I made a sport of attacking battleships from the opposite side from where there guns were facing. Holding off my attack till the battleship became fully focused on firing on some other ship which she could spot. Then closing to 3-4 km so she could see me, not using cannons and simply coming up close and torpedo and sink the battleship at point blank range and watch the poor sod in the battleship to desperately try to turn his slowly moving turrets and ship towards my destroyer, which he of course never would be able to do in time. Many times the battleship commander never even spotted me due to his attention being focused on the cruisers and battleships firing at him. If things became dangerous I engaged my "engine boost device" and turned on my "smoke screen device" which took my passive invisibility to an even better level as I sailed to safety. In the beginning this was fun. Over time however to me that "cloaking device" advantage was not only unfair and unauthentic compared to other classes in WOWS, but more importantly it was not challenging to me in the long run. Playing like that felt more like cheating, one-sided and ultimately boring because when skilfully and patiently played a destroyer has overwhelming advantages compared to the other classes in WOWS. So if a commander skill is introduced which is not only a tad authentic but more importantly objectively levels the playing field to a tiny degree between destroyers and the other classes in WOWS, I can only look at it favourably from a game play point of view.

Just to see how strong a Tier 9 or Tier 10 Japanese aircraft carrier is with torpedo bomber attacks. Do this: * Enable the training room, you can find here how to do that: https://sea-group.org/?p=1941&lang=en * Setup a training lobby on the training room server * Take a tier 8 battleship, for example Bismarck or Tirpitz as your ship, fully setup mainly for Anti-Aircraft and secondarily for damage control (with modules, commander skills, consumables etc.) * Let it be faced in the training room by 1x an AI controlled tier 9 (Taiho) or tier 10 (Hakuryu) Japanese aircraft carrier * Do you best to keep your battleship afloat. * Do the test 5-10 times in a row. The results: * Tier 8 Bismarck/Tirpitz being sunk in generally 1-3 torpedo bomber attack runs (of two flights each). Conclusion: * Even the AI is always capable of sinking a tier 8 battleship with a tier 9-10 Japanese aircraft carrier with a no brains approach, no matter what the battleship commander does. Still not convinced? * Repeat the test with any tier 8-10 battleship. If the "dumb" AI can get the same result in every single test, then imagine what a skilled human player in a tier 9-10 Japanese aircraft carrier can do every time all the time.

@Admiral_Stoex What we have now in WOWS is Arcade mode, dumbed down as hell with insane invisibility firing of both guns and torpedoes. And with unrealistically high chance to hit ratios for torpedoes which at the same time inflict an insane amount of damage on the best protected capital ships in history. Not to mention cruisers which easily burn down ships like Yamato with "fire" rounds (Zao for example). Any tier 8+ destroyer can easily shrug off 6x 38+ cm hits in WOWS, one hit of which in real life would lead to catastrophic flooding with tons of sea water in any destroyer. A man with a binocular on top of a 15 meter tall mast on a ship can see a destroyer with a 2 meter tall mast before the destroyer can see the ship with the 15 meter tall mast, due to the planet being round and all. In other words, large ships with highly positioned lookouts can see farther than small ships. So destroyers are spotted at long range and they are not invisible in real life until they are within 5 km range as is the case in WOWS. In WOWS it is the other way round with the tiny ship spotting the tall ship first, which is unauthentic and even more so unrealistic. Not to mention that the best radars and best sighting equipment generally went to the most expensive ships not to the tiny fairly inexpensive ones for obvious, very obvious reasons. So the ships with the best radars and sighting equipment were generally not the destroyers or cruisers as a rule of thumb, discounting one of a kind experimental radars which were mounted on this or that ship occasionally. The invisible firing mechanism in WOWS is not only unauthentic but it is also quite insane, there really is no other word for it. There is no reasonable justification for it, not even from a "balance" point of view. Being on the receiving end of several ships firing both cannon and torpedoes at short ranges while being "invisible" is very bad for game play. One only has to watch the reaction of a new player when he/she first is subjected to that. For game play purposes players should always have the "feeling" that they have a fair chance of fighting back. One cannot fight back at an invisible enemy and one cannot evade torpedoes one does not even know that are incoming until it is too late. So one has to sail in a zigzag pattern in WOWS to avoid the invisible torpedoes. Sailing in zigzag patterns for 20 minutes is not fun and slows you down considerably. Sailing in a zigzag pattern would be justified when facing submarines, since they actually are invisible, but it is not when facing destroyers, that is unauthentic at best and far far far removed from realistic and even further removed from a "simulator". As to torpedo's, for example you can read the War Diary of the Prinz Eugen where their Gruppenhorchgerät (Hydro-acoustic device) picked up a torpedo being launched at something like 14-16 km or so, which is the reason for the evasive action taken in combat by Bismarck and Prinz Eugen at Denmark Strait in 1941 even though no torpedo was actually visually sighted by lookouts. That same Gruppenhorchgerät (Hydro-acoustic device) picked up the turbines of two large ships (Hood and Prince of Wales) hours before they were visually sighted at Denmark Strait in 1941. Not to mention British radio signals being decoded by German decoders on Bismarck immediately after they were transmitted, which betrayed both the name and location of the ship sending the signal. Or the British using radio direction finding (triangulation) to determine the location of Bismarck. At the www.kbismarck.com website and its forum there are many primary documents available for study on these matters. Tirpitz in 1944 had an aircraft radar with a range of 250 km and the sea target radar it mounted could range and track a ship at 44+ km and Tirpitz could "blind" fire its guns via radar and radar linked targeting gunnery computers at maximum gun range. As to torpedo bombers, Bismarck, a solitary battleship, was attacked at sea two times by torpedo bombers. The first attack was carried out on 24 May 1941 by 9 Swordfish Torpedo Bombers which attacked from different directions all at once, of which 8 released their torpedoes at the battleship causing one hit. The second attack was carried out on 26 May 1941 by 15 Swordfish Torpedo Bombers attacking from different directions all at once, of the 15 released torpedoes two caused hits. The British admitted the loss of no aircraft and the German War Diary of Bismarck including its unknown claim of enemy aircraft shot down was lost with the ship on 27 May 1941. Tirpitz, another solitary battleship on the high seas was attacked under perfect weather conditions by 12 Albacore Torpedo Bombers from British carrier Victorious on 9 March 1942. The attack was executed perfectly from four different directions all at once, but the battleship evaded all 12 torpedoes and shot down 5 Torpedo Bombers (possibly 6 or 7). The British during wartime admitted the loss of 2 Albacores which was in line with official wartime government regulations of generally under-reporting friendly losses and exaggerating enemy losses when possible. So three different attacks by 36 Torpedo Bombers caused 3 torpedo hits against a solitary battleship. That is a hit rate of 8% at best. Against Tirpitz for a torpedo hit rate of 0% the British admitted the loss of 2 aircraft (16% losses) and the Germans eye witnesses claimed at least 5 aircraft shot down (41% losses). Now compare that with any torpedo bomber attack in WOWS by an aircraft carrier commanded by a skilled player. A skilled player can easily get 50%+ hit rates with a single torpedo bomber attack run, meaning he can sink almost any tier 8-10 battleship with one good manual torpedo drop attack run carried out by two flights of tier 8-10 torpedo bombers (8-12 aircraft), which is unauthentic to say the least. As to smoke screens, almost all ships of the time period could lay them up till and including battleships. In WOWS smoke screen capability is given only to destroyers and some arbitrarily picked cruisers, this is not only unbalanced and unfair but also unauthentic. As to radar in WOWS, giving radar to only some countries and to only some ships is quite ridiculous since for example Germany, USA and Britain in WW2 all used radar on their main naval combat vessels. Moreover Germany had a clear lead in radar technology up till the mid-war period and had at least parity in radar technology for the remainder of the war. The USSR and Japan however did not have parity with Germany, USA and Britain in terms of radar technology during WW2. So here again WOWS is unauthentic to say the least. Not to mention the spotting aircraft in WOWS which also cannot spot for example a destroyer at long range (18+ km) or even short range (6-8 km) for that matter. The spotting of objects (ships, fall of shot etc.) at long range is actually the reason why ships carried spotting aircraft in real life. Lastly the WOWS maps are unauthentic for naval combat since they are all built around many islands, forcing very large naval vessels to sail around tightly grouped islands which they would avoid like the plague in real life for obvious reasons. So therefore do not for one moment consider that WOWS in its current form or shape is anywhere near "Authentic" and it is even further removed from being "Realistic" and light-years removed from being a "Simulator". As to the new Commander skill which seems to have dedicated WOWS destroyers commanders scared to death, that skill actually introduces something authentic. Ships and torpedoes could be detected long before they were actually seen by hydro-acoustic devices and ships could be detected long before they were seen via high frequency direction finding, radio direction finding (triangulation) and radar. The current situation in WOWS concerning spotting and "invisible" firing is unauthentic, unrealistic and far far far removed from simulator mode, so if a new module or skill is introduced which actually brings some authenticity to WOWS I can only applaud it.

Having a Simulator setting in WOWS would be a good idea, although I would call it an "Authentic" setting. There are Simulator game play fans who do not want to play WOWS because it only offers a very simplified Arcade style game play, so WOWS actually loses out on attracting Simulator fans to the WOWS player base. It has been a long time since I played "Warthunder", but that game had a Simulation and an Arcade setting last time I played it. Earlier games made by the same developer also had Arcade and Simulator settings. From what I saw in those game the "splitting" the player base was not really a problem. Most of the player base play on Arcade settings and the better players generally over time move on to Simulator settings because Arcade style game play over time becomes boring. The Simulator fans which currently avoid playing WOWS because it only offers Arcade style game play could also be added to the WOWS player base when a Simulator setting would be introduced. In short, I would welcome Simulator settings in WOWS, by which I really mean a more "Authentic" style game play setting as opposed to the current Arcade style game play. some definitions: 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)". Most commercial consumer games offer "Authentic" style game play at best even if they are marketed as "Simulator" games. Games as DCS and the like maybe can be considered slight exceptions to that rule. Most real "Simulators" due to their depth and detail are not produced for the commercial consumer games market at all, but instead produced for and used by the military, aviation etc. Even the "Simulation" setting of "Warthunder" is not really a simulator or even realistic setting, but an "Authentic" setting at best. Real simulators generally do not attract a large player audience, but an "Authentic" setting can attract a decent sized player base. If one looks at a game as "Wargame: Red Dragon", that game is neither a Simulator nor Arcade nor is it simplistic rock, paper, scissors. It is generally "Authentic" and units can be "all round" meaning capable of dealing with more than one threat type. This would be especially good for a game as WOWS, to make sure that a player in one ship can deal with all threat types it can face. Nothing over time becomes more boring then knowing that your ship cannot take on other types of ships at all, because you cannot as a player dictate what threat type you have to face. Even worse in WOWS players cannot count on other players and other ship types to "help" them compensate for the unauthentic weaknesses which WOWS by design has given to several ship classes to implement a rock, paper, scissors mechanism. The current Arcade style game play becomes boring for experienced and skilled players as times goes by, since it produces the same results again and again. For example let us take a look at the infamous WOWS battleship versus destroyer game play. It generally currently is a one sided event, where all the advantages lie with the destroyer if a battleship and destroyer are commanded by players of equal experience and skill in WOWS. However, in all of WW2 not a single battleship was ever sunk by destroyers alone. The only contenders are the Japanese battleship Fuso which had been both bombed by USN aircraft and hit by torpedoes from unknown origin, and the Japanese battleship Yamashiro which had been both heavily shelled by 7 USN cruisers and battleships and hit by torpedoes. In WOWS however the "natural enemy" of the battleship is the destroyer, this is very unauthentic and over time becomes very boring. An "Authentic" game play style for example would allow for a solitary and motionless battleship which has lost the ability to steer a straight course or move at all to be attacked at night in low visibility conditions by five destroyers without the destroyers being able to sink it automatically and with the destroyers having to fear being sunk when attacking it under these odds and conditions. For example take the situation of the solitary battleship Bismarck in the night of 26 May 1941, which according to the British Royal Navy "Bismarck survivor interrogation reports" at the time lay motionless (adrift) on the Atlantic at the time of the attack: The attack was carried out by a British Royal Navy Flottila of five then-modern destroyers with well trained and combat experienced crews under the command of arguably one of the most capable, experienced and daring destroyer Flottila Commanders in the British Royal Navy, Sir Philip Vian. Vian was later promoted to the highest rank in the British Royal Navy, Admiral of the Fleet. Four of the destroyers belonged to the famous Tribal-class destroyers, arguably the best all-round destroyers the British Royal Navy had at the time. Four out of the five destroyers were damaged by the Bismarck, generally being damaged by the first salvo fired at them when they attacked the adrift battleship under cover of night. The five destroyers in turn were not able to score a single hit on the solitary battleship, not with their guns and not with their torpedoes even though a 251 meters long and 36 meters wide adrift and effectively motionless battleship essentially presented the "perfect and easy to hit" solitary target. The five destroyers had 21 torpedoes available for combat of which they fired at least 16 at the Bismarck in addition to the gunfire they directed at Bismarck. One of the conditions required for accurate gunnery calculations is being able to steer a straight course and hold it, something the Bismarck could not do at the time due to his rudder being damaged and the gale force 7/8 (storm) weather conditions. Considering that it is more than remarkable that Bismarck's exhausted crew, which had been practically at actions stations for four straight days since 23 May, was able to generally straddle four destroyers with the first salvo. Moreover only about 3% of Bismarck's crew were experienced service men, the rest were trained but "green". Out of the three Radars on board Bismarck only the aft one was still operational at the time which had a range of 25 km but it could only range abeam and astern of the ship. The destroyers were picked up on Bismarck's radar somewhere between 25 to 14 km and visually sighted in the night at 8 km in a force 7/8 Gale (storm). The Bismarck was able to "blind" fire on the destroyers via use of her gunnery targeting computers which were linked to her radar. The destroyers executed their attack run up till 4 km from Bismarck after which they turned back. Consider the same situation in WOWS, where a battleship is surrounded by five destroyers which she cannot sight until they are within 6 km or less in WOWS and who in turn can fire their torpedoes and cannon at the battleship while remaining "invisible". Would the battleship in WOWS under similar circumstances be able to threaten the destroyers, let alone survive the torpedo attack? In WOWS the battleship would have no chance against the destroyers whatsoever, every time all the time. Which essentially makes WOWS combat predictable, boring and one sided over time. Both for the experienced WOWS destroyer commander and the experienced WOWS battleship commander. And destroyers and battleships are arguably the most favourite ship types in WOWS. Now in an "Authentic" WOWS mode, not a real "Simulator" mode, but an "Authentic" mode a solitary battleship under similar circumstances would have a chance to remain dangerous and afloat. I think an "authentic" mode would keep the more experienced and skilled players interested in WOWS in the long term, whereas now these players over time will quit playing the game due to its Arcade style play. So instead of "splitting" the player base, it would add to it while still keeping the Arcade players aboard. Having aircraft carriers turn into the wind to launch and recover their aircraft and having aircraft carriers move to be able to launch/recover aircraft at all also would be authentic additions to the game. A more authentic cruiser game play would also benefit the cruiser class in WOWS which is currently generally not in a good position compared to the other classes. All ship classes in WOWS could benefit from an "Authentic" setting both for the more experienced players and for "simulator" fans.

For the upcoming WOWS German battleship "tree" which will probably be released before or at Gamescom in Cologne/Köln 18-21 August 2016 it would be an interesting idea to add a German navy commemorative Signal Flag available to all battleship in WOWS from all nations. So this Signal Flag would be available to all WOWS players in all battleships from all countries represented in WOWS (USA, Japan, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany etc.) and not only to German battleships to be sure. Currently we have in WOWS two historic commemorative Signal Flags: 1.) Zulu (awarded for “First Blood”). Historic signal of the Japanese Navy, giving you a 20% bonus to credits earned in battle. 2.) Equal Speed Charlie London (awarded for “Kraken Unleased”). Historic signal of the British Royal Navy giving you a 50% bonus to experience earned in battle. These two Signal Flags are based on historic ones: - The "Z" Flag Signal was hoisted by the Japanese Admiral Togo on 27th May 1905 at the battle of Tsushima and its historic meaning was "The Empire's fate depends on the result of this battle, let every man do his utmost duty.". - The "Equal Speed/C(harlie)/L(ondon)" Flag Signal was hoisted by British Admiral Jellicoe on 31st May 1916 at the battle of Skagerrak/Jutland and its historic meaning was to direct his fleet to change from a column formation to a single battle line steering course Southeast by East, while maintaining the current speed. It would be interesting to introduce a new commemorative WOWS Signal Flag for the German navy at the same time that the German battleship line is introduced in WOWS. There are several candidates for a German navy historic Flag Signal, my first choice is the historic "JOT DORA" signal (JD) which was hoisted on 24th May 1941 by the commander of the German battleship BISMARCK Kapitän zur See (Captain) Lindemann. The JOT DORA Flag Signal looks like this: If JOT DORA would be added as a German navy commemorative Signal Flag in WOWS and would be based on the historic battle of the Denmark Strait then I can think of several appropriate effects for JOT DORA when hoisted in WOWS: Award +1 Commander Skill Point and player ship main gun accuracy improved by 10% (due to BISMARCK’s K.z.S. Lindemann disobeying orders, hoisting JOT DORA and sinking HOOD). Minus 20% to the firing accuracy of enemy ships attacking your ship with gun fire (due to HOOD missing its target completely for ten minutes after which she was sunk). Plus 20% to the risk of an enemy ship being targeted by the main guns of the player’s ship of having a magazine detonating (due to HOOD being hit in a magazine). Player ship main gun accuracy improved by 20%. (due to BISMARCK and PRINZ EUGEN respectively hitting HOOD with their third and fourth half-salvo’s). I think option number one (1.) is by far the most original and best option, since it has only a minor effect on game play but is still nice to have. And most importantly it will allow all players to have at least a chance in their natural life to have one commander reach Skill Point number 19 in WOWS. Grounds for awarding JOT DORA, which should be a very rare Signal Flag to get and use: When a player commanding a battleship sinks an enemy battleship with the first 40 rounds it fires on that ship with its main armament then JOT DORA is awarded. The Signal Flag should be limited to being rewarded only once per month per player. This flag should not be able to be purchased with any form of money, credit, doubloons etc. but instead only “earned” in game and not be transferable. The history behind Flag Signal JOT DORA: on 24th May 1941 the British heavy cruisers NORFOLK and SUFFOLK together with the British battleship PRINCE OF WALES and British battle cruiser HOOD engaged the German heavy cruiser PRINZ EUGEN and the German battleship BISMARCK at the battle of Denmark Strait. In the engagement the HOOD opened fire at about 05:52 hours and until about 06:01 fired about 44 rounds in 10-11 half-salvo’s at the PRINZ EUGEN all of which completely missed the target. At about 05:57 HOOD was hit by BISMARCK’s third half-salvo and PRINZ EUGEN’s fourth half-salvo. At 05:57 HOOD's Control Tower (and Main Fire Control Director) was hit and knocked out by BISMARCK and at about 06:00 the HOOD was hit again by BISMARCK’s fifth half-salvo and then exploded and sank. HOOD was hit at least about two to three times in total by BISMARCK from 05:55 to 06:00 and at least about once in total by PRINZ EUGEN from 05:55 to 05:58. The explosion of HOOD was most likely caused by a magazine explosion caused by BISMARCK at about 06:00. The HOOD and PRINCE OF WALES opened fire at about 05:52 on respectively PRINZ EUGEN and BISMARCK. The German Admiral Lütjens who commanded BISMARCK and PRINZ EUGEN for reasons really only known to him did not allow any of his ships to return fire. At about 05:55 the commander of BISMARCK Kapitän zur See (K.z.S.) Lindemann had enough of it and directly disobeyed Admiral Lütjens when he said: “Ich lasse mir (doch) nicht mein Schiff unter meinem Ar**h wegschießen! Feuer eröffnen!” ("I will not let my ship be shot away from under my ar*e! Open fire!”). K.z.S. Lindemann then ordered the JOT DORA Flag Signal to be hoisted which informed PRINZ EUGEN that permission was given by Lindemann to open fire. Admiral Lütjens did not respond to K.z.S. Lindemann’s insubordination. For more reading on the 1941 Denmark Strait battle: http://www.kbismarck.com/ds-barticle.pdf

I prefer Roma, but Vittorio Veneto is fine too. I have seen more than enough of the Japanese and USA battleships in WOWS as it is. It is high time that ships like Hood, Roma/Vittorio Veneto, Richelieu/Jean Bart are added.

All Kriegsmarine primary source documents that I have read and books written by former Kriegsmarine members have all stated that 38+ cm turrets with four turrets with two guns (4x2) were generally preferred by the Kriegsmarine for several for them valid reasons, for example: - They allow for a higher rate of fire per turret (for example Bismarck class had a maximum rate of fire of 3.3 rounds per gun). - They allow the firepower of the ship to be spread over more turrets (4 vs 3) which weigh less and also which allow the ship to effectively engage four targets if necessary. - If one turret is knocked out that only reduces the firepower of the ship by 25% in a 4x2 setup, in a 3x3 setup losing one turret reduces the firepower by 33%. - The 4x2 setup allows 50% of the main guns to be concentrated both forward and aft, unlike 3x3 which allows only one turret to fire aft in other words only 33%.

The test results I have obtained are quite useful and confirmed by in game experience as well. But since you have not seen my test results and checked them versus in game experience as I have, you have no way of making any kind of statement on their usefullness or validity. This is a fact. You appear to have some sort of "trust" in the "official" WOWS data and appear to think that WOWS is so "complex" that it has some sort of highly detailed, realistic and complex individual shell handling mechanism. It might, but I have no access to the WOWS code so I cannot say if it does and will not automatically assume so. I do not "trust" the ship data provided by WOWS in the harbour and player profile at face value either. That is based on checking if what is listed there is actually correct in-game by keeping my own records and statistics and by testing. As Winston Chuchill reportedly said: “I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself” WOWS is not the first game where the developers present game data and statistics to the players which in reality is not the full real data used by the game. As a rule of thumb: to measure is to know, he who guesses will miss, and he who bets will end paying up. I have not read the WOWS functional and technical specifications since to my knowledge they are not publicly available. So I do not know how WOWS really works in terms of actually coded specifications. Maybe you have read these specifications, but I have not and have no way of telling if you have. In absence of any evidence that you have, I will assume that you think that you know how WOWS is actually coded, but that you have no real access to the actual WOWS specifications and code and so in effect do not know anything for sure but assume you do. A "user" does not have to know what is actually coded however. But what he does need to know is what will happen under certain circumstances, and that can be ascertained by testing. What I have done is "black box testing". I hope you know something about professionaly testing software and hence know what that is, but in case you do not here is a very basic explanation of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-box_testing "Black box testing" is significant because it gives insight in what actually happens, for me as a "user" of WOWS. Think of your car. Do you really know what is in the programming code used by your car? I do not and as a "user" do not have to know or even want to know in fact. But what I do need to know is how the car handles in certain situations. And for that "black box testing" is appropriate. The "black box" tests I have done have been setup to have reproducibility, another thing important for pertinent testing, I hope you know what that is. But in case you do, not a basic introduction can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility The test results which I have obtained, have been confirmed by me my in actual game experience with I also have registered over a certain time frame to check if the test results and game play experience are comparable. And they are. In other words I know the actual chance to hit for the ships tested if the target reasonably holds his course and speed at a certain range. Of the ships tested I also know which ships will usually win a certain 1 versus 1 engagement, which is helpfull for obvious reasons. To sum it up, WOWS data presented to players is not to be trusted at face value. That also includes player statistics. The statistics data on the WOWS player profile is contaminated for several reasons. For example it includes data from different versions in which important accuracy changes were made and it also conficts with separate data that I have kept to check my WOS player data statistics. For a while I have in-game intentionally missed targets to lower my actual hit rate and see if that was accurately reflected in my player statistics, which it was not by the way. Another obvious thing contaminating WOWS accuracy percentages is that the chance to hit depends on the target. I know the average chance to hit certain destroyers, cruisers and battleships. By constantly targeting destroyers and cruisers with a battleship I will always get lower hit rates and if these are incorporated in a "general" hit percentage then the accuracy percentage figure is of little practical value. None of this is represented in the WOWS ship and player data which is presented to the players on various sites of course. In other words, it is more useful for a player to rely on reproducible "black box" test results and privately kept in-game statistics than on any assumptions of what is actually in the WOWS program code and data files or what is listed in the WOWS harbour ship data and WOWS player statistics. But you are free to do as what you want of course.

Nice informative summary, thanks. I suspect that most of the ships' crews were predominantly Dutch and German based on what I read. It is kind of ironic that the Poles and Russians have ships in WOWS while the Dutch have not. Both these navies had Dutch rooted origins. Not to mention the Russian flag which uses the Dutch red-white-and-blue colours due to Peter the Great spending time in the Netherlands, studying among other things ship building in Zaandam for example. It would have been nice if the good people at WOWS in St. Petersburg (Lesta Studio) would have acknowledged the Dutch roots of their navy by including at least one Dutch ship just as they did for Poland. The Dutch light cruiser De Ruyter (1939) still exists and is the last gun cruiser in service today. It would be a nice addition to WOWS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAP_Almirante_Grau_(CLM-81)

The data you provide in this topic is most interesting, thanks a lot for sharing that. I wonder, is there any piece of WOWS data which actually lists the percentage chance to hit for the main guns of the WOWS ships? I have done quite lengthy and extensive 1 versus 1 testing in the WOWS training room between Tier 8 Tirpitz versus all Tier 6-10 battleships at ~15.6 km under a ~50 degree angle of impact and the hit percentages and damage per minute data in these tests is remarkably consistent, all tests done with the same test parameters yielded about the same chance to hit (accuracy) and damage per minute/round results within a +/-2-3% standard deviation for all ships tested. In some cases up to four tests in a row gave the exact same result both in rounds and salvo's needed to sink a target, hit percentage for the main guns and actual damage inflicted per minute/round. All possible Tirpitz versus Tier 6-10 battleship combinations were tested under the exact same conditions (range, angle of impact etc.). Tests between moving battleships - with both battleships holding the same course, range and speed - were also done and on average the chance to hit figure (accuracy) versus a particular moving battleship is about 50 percent of the chance to hit figure of that particular battleship when it is stationary. So for example if the chance to hit against a particular battleship is 50 percent when that particular battleship is stationary, then the chance to hit is about 25 percent when that particular battleship is moving at the same course, speed and range. Again with a +/-2-3% standard deviation for all ships tested when they are moving as described. The test results lead me to conclude that the effects of the Random Number Generator are actually much less important than they are rumored to be. My question due to all of this: To your knowledge, is there a database figure where WOWS stores the actual chance to hit for the main guns?