G01ngToxicCommand0

Worst thing is the weekend n00b protection; played Zao for two straight games firing HE only: 146 total hits 4 fires and this result should be happening with 20% fire chance per HE shell. Played 3 games in tier 10. lost all gave as the teams were pure mongs that all lemmining in one corner in every single game. Unfortunately this is the reality of WoWS and it is really sucking out any enjoyment of the game with this no skill low IQ player base. I blame WG for not dividing the player base after skill/player rating.

Define 'balanced'..

It is not a good ship and i would recommend against buying it unless the price was at 10 euros.

That is a perfectly valid question. Cosseria already answered but I have some additions. The spotter is trained to work with the ship it was attached to only so that their fire direction communication would work as effective as possible, there wouldn't be any training using other ships. In addition to this the spotter would not be privy to the radio frequencies of other ships fire control parties due to operational secrecy and to prevent sending information and requests to the wrong ship. Also not discussed earlier is the technical and tactical limitations of spotter planes. On the technical side they have a limited time they can stay in the air and spot due to fuel limitation which means that it also affects the tactics as naval battles could easily take hours and if launching the spotter too early or too late would limit its effect on the battle. Spotter planes would suffer from the same limitations as the standard optical fire directors would such as limited vision due to weather effects, smoke and splashes and would only improve spotting at very long ranges as the fire directors where superior in directing fire below 25 km where the entirety of the target could be observed contra longer ranges where part or all of the target would be below the horizon and thus make it hard to impossible to observe the splash patterns of the gun fire. From a tactical point of view there is the issue of recovering the spotter plane during combat which would mean that the ship would have to slow down and turn so that the spotter plane could be picked up in the side as the ship were turning to where the sea would be calmer because of the ship turning. As this would make the ship more vulnerable to gunfire and torpedos the spotter plane would most likely be ordered to land on the water and wait for pickup after the battle ended. Then there is the matter of aerial threats to the spotter plane which could only operate if there weren't any enemy fighter planes present which would limit its use in waters were air superiority wasn't established. One thing is using a spotter plane in peace time fire control training, using it during actual combat conditions is an entirely different matter and while there may be examples of naval battles during WW2 where spotter planes were used I have yet to find examples of it and I would love to see some descriptions of them being employed during actual surface actions. One might wonder why neither HMS Prince of Wales, Prinz Eugen, Bismarck used their spotter planes during the Battle of the Denmark strait as that would have been a perfectly tactical enviroment to use them in as there were no fighters present, good visibility and only two vs two ships all with different gun calibres that could be easily discerned from oneanother.

Wall of text incoming: You are oversimplifying the process completely. There was no way a second world war, let alone a first world war ship could act as a spotter for another ship when shooting against moving targets because they lacked the data sharing technology required to transmit the target information real time to the firing ship's fire control center. It could not be done by radio alone because of the way radio signals was recieved at the time. From the time the firing ship would have received target data and adjustments for its fire the data would be several minutes old and thus useless. You have got to understand that shooting indirectly from a moving vessel at a moving target can not be compared to shooting from a static position or a moving vessel at static targets because the process has at least twice as many variables to factor in the calculations. The spotter not only has to know his own position, heading and speed but also the range, bearing, speed and heading of the target and for the ship he is spotting for. If one of them is wrong the range and bearing rates will be wrong when calculated and the firing ship will miss. Also no ships at the time could calculate firing solutions for other than themselves because that was how the fire control computers worked as they worked by inputting own ship's speed and heading plus the bearing, range, speed and heading of the target so that bearing and range rates could be calculated and input in the firing solution in addition to ballistic factors, so that the most accurate firing solution could be achieved. Before radar range finding was implemented range and bearing readings would happen at about 15s intervals in the Royal Navy and transmitted by electrical circuits to the fire control table, don't know about other navies though. This was the highest possible rate of information flow with optical rangefinding equipment, meaning that the data was at least 15 seconds old when arriving in the fire control table. This provided a hit probability of 3-6% at typical engagement ranges and that was by direct observation and adjustment of fire by the fire control officer. Now try to imagine the time it will take for the target readings to reach the firing ship's firing table from an external source that have to first do his own range and bearing taking to the target and send those together with his own position, speed and heading as well as the range and bearing to the firing ship over a wireless, either in morse code or by speech if available. Unless the spotter had direct acces to the fire control room the firing ship then have to receive the data first in the radioroom then deliver it to the fire control room. When received in the fire control room the data has to be translated to a range and bearing to the target which requires manual calculation, because the fire control tables could only handle own and target ship data, before being able to input the correct data into the fire control table. At this point the data would be severely outdated to the point where it was useless which is why the only way to shoot at a moving target while optically obstructed was by use of radar guided fire control as HMS Duke of York did when engaging the Scharnhorst. It was possible to use spotter planes for indirect fire but only for ships it was spotting for with the firing ship knowing the distance and bearing to the spotter planes by use of radar or other electronic way of measuring those. If the spotterplane came under fire it or would be subjected to radio jamming by the target or other enemy vessels this could completely block communication between spotter plane and the firing ship, it would probably cease transmitting useful information. The latter is some of the reasons why radar controlled gunnery surplanted spotter planes completely. However spotter planes did offer better hit probability at long ranges than when directing the fire from a director control tower but only when it had fast and continuous contact with the fire control room and not hindered by low visibility, poor training or shell splashes from multiple ships. Obviously if the range and bearing to the spotter plane could no longer be maintained it would have made it impossible to direct the gunfire from the spotterplane. All of the above could only be done on ships with centralised gunnery direction and could not be done when the guns were under local control. So in the scope of this game the only ships capable of firing indirectly or from inside smoke would be those who uses a spotter plane and/or have radar controlled guns and nothing else. Page on use of spotter planes: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/RADEIGHTA/RADEIGHTA-21.html#A Various sources on naval fire control from the WoWS time frame: https://maritime.org/doc/afcc/index.htm https://maritime.org/doc/br224/index.htm https://maritime.org/doc/indicator/index.htm http://www.gwpda.org/naval/usnfirec.htm http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/FIRE-CONTROL-PAGE.html http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-18-A.html http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-18-B.html http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-18-C.html https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/BGD/index.html http://www.ijnhonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/hone_doctrine-in-the-usn_-rev10-02.pdf

First dutch ship confirmed?

WoWS is nothing more than World of tanks on blue grass and ship skins. The ships don't roll, yaw or pitch in the sea and the only sea state is dead calm thus there is nothing that affects the naval artillery, torpedos or aircrafts which, unlike real life, can always be brought to bear on the target. World of warships is very far from real life naval conditions and the physics are very rudimentary compared to games like the SIlent Hunter series. Still a fun game though.

It wasn't even theoretical possible in the game's time frame as the technology required to transmit the necessary data from one ship or spotting aircraft to the fire control computers in real time format didn't exist. Accurate fire control against moving targets require real time information collection and updates or it simply isn't possible to hit anything non static targets. In game for balance issues only and have nothing to with real life naval fire control.

Better to remove manual attacks alltogether.

And the difference between you and the OP is that you put in the effort needed to complete the campaign and got rewarded for it, he didn't and still feel cheated...

My last game in the Bogue from last week; removal of manual drop emasculated it hard:

I'll be a total Wargaming shill here and say that if those 2 hours broke the deal for you for a campaign, that I myself fully completed in less than 4 days, then you shouldn't be participating in time limited campaigns if you can't reserve the time needed to complete them in time. If you really needed those last two hours to complete this easy campaign then you are doing something awfully wrong. As a player you have to factor in such eventualities and you not completing the campaign in time is not the fault of Wargaming but entirely your own due to your lack of commitment or skill or both.

^Good to hear a happy ending to the story.

I can see the account only has 12 battles played so my advice is to not waste time trying to retrieve the account but in stead make a new one and play with that as that will take less time and effort. Also you should give your son a lesson in internet security.

^That is hard to watch.. It is so frustrating to have those windowlicking mouthbreathers ruin what should have been a great game experience simply because they are so inept and incompetent while also having no motivation or desire to improve their skills.

Someone has to tell the bad players that they are bad and good players should be immune from chat bans now that there is no way that the bad players can be excluded from the good players teams.

^Saw steviln in the same game - wasn't sure we would win, good thing steviln fought like a demon

Very nice, thank you for making this mod

Finally I got the 'Solo Warrior' achievement in the Fiji and won the game by punching my way through a Scharnhorst, Atlanta and finally an Independence before being able to cap the enemy base. Team result: Detailed results: Credits and XP:

No I mean limitless reloads as in: time is the only limit on how many reloads is possible which equally apply for all ships in the game.

So only 1 in 5 completed the campaign and collected a bismarck..

Carriers do not have ammunition, they have planes which are modules with limitless reloads, exactly the same as every other ship class where guns and torpedos are modules too. In short: No.

^This, I have no count on how many times I'd either hit a dodging CA/CL or a DD or been hit playing those while dodging by one or more stray shell hitting far of the point of aim. The large dispersions patterns give those random WTF moments that doesn't happen with guns with lesser dispersion, especially on close ranges.

There are only 2 ways to force people to do what you want: 1) Threaten them with bodily harm or death. 2) Threaten their family with bodily harm or death. Since none of the above are realistic options the sad reality is that you can't force players to do what you want them to do.

3 wins - no flag.