G01ngToxicCommand0

My main interest in WoWS is historical only and not because I want to play OP ships that fits my playstyle alone and none others. Having said that I'd leave WoWS in a flash if a more realistic early to mid 20th century naval battle game was published as I find WoWS to nothing more than WoT on blue grass. About carriers I find them to be both extremely badly implemented in the game as well as bad for the game and community in general. The class is in direct opposition to how Wargaming wants the game to play, which is WoWS is primarily supposed to be won by capping in domination mode game as that mode is the most prevalent and carriers simply prevent the aggressive gamestyle necessesary by having an objective ability to destroy or cripple all classes of ships at will while itself being imune to attack from its targets. Carriers primary target IRL was the enemy carriers which happens so rarely in WoWS that it is almost non existing in the game, in addition that to an extent CV vs. CV gameplay is even being actively prevented by Wargaming with the introduction of long duration defensive fire consumables for high tier CVs. The way carriers are used in WoWS are not only highly unrealistic it is also divisive in nature and serves only to antagonise the victims of carrier strikes while allowing the CV players ample opportunity to stroke their e-peens for those who do so. Carriers are a disgusting part of WoWS as implemented and the best thing is to place them in CV vs. CV battles only so that the CV players can face real opposition and challenging foes rather than the usual lambs to the slaughter. Carriers as a class should not be in standard, domination or epicenter modes but should have its own game mode with multiple carriers facing off against each other with other classes present as support and AA protection only with the win objective of getting 1000 points by destroying ships only, no objectives to cap and that all non CV classes provides a +50/-50 point addition/subtraction while CVs are worth 100-200 depending on whether they are CV, CVE or CVL. New larger maps would have to be introduced obviously and changes to core CV mechanics/gameplay would probably also have to be made, such as fuel for aircraft and different number of squadrons and/or planes per squadron. This should provide CV players with plenty of challenging and entertaining gameplay while also being closer to historical events than the current situation.

It looks like she has just been pulled from the bottom of the Atlantic and is in the present state of preservation. I wonder how the special camo for Hood will look like - a broken hull in 3 pieces? I can't see myself playing with a ship that looks like a wreck but it would be nice if that is how damage on ships in WoWS would look like when taking damage.

You only get the Hotel Yankee if your ships survives the collision which you probably didn't since you haven't received that signal.

Got the engine boost module.

I don't think she knows that,not the way she handles

Well I got the Speed Boost module which was the only thing I wanted so no more need to grind this event.

But isn't that the case with all the tier 3 cruisers, floaty arcs?

The 7x2 4 inch secondaries has base 5km range which could be quite effective at setting fires and killing/scaring off DDs if speccing for it but why would anyone do that when the main guns has so poor a sigma value?

The 1940 version of HMS Hood did not have 5.5 inch secondaries, it only had 4 inch DP guns.

I think this has more to do with personal preferences on how to play than ships' capabilities. My personal experience is that from the Friant to the Émile Bertin, the current tier of french cruisers that I am at, are all ships that win games through their sheer firepower and superior mobility and are better at angling AP than is immediately apparent. They are ships that are made to win games by absolutely dominating enemy cruisers and destroyers by their strong AP and HE and they do so very well, better than all other nations at those tiers IMHO. Can't say anything above tier V as I do not have french cruisers above tier V so might get dissapointed there?

The french cruisers are worth to come back for; actionpacked gameplay and their guns are like citadel and fire factories

Remove islands.

It is a very fun ship to play and I think that WG hit a good compromise and made a well balanced premium ship that is neither UP nor OP and which allows for an aggressive play style if the player knows how to angle the ship and dodge.

Or a Hood in order to get 'specials' like with the Graf Spee missions..

Sorry ran out of +1s but here is a to your mum for being epic troll.

LOL yeah, my mum haven't had so much "male member" since I began playing online, thank so much for all those willing gamers

Wargaming, please do something to remove the camping meta in high tier games. The insane amount of camping in high tier games, and now also on the lower tiers, is getting so ridiculously pervasive to a magnitude of it being meaningless and frustrating to the point where grinding for high tier ships is simply not worth the effort or money spent on dubloons for converting XP and permanent camos. There is no possible way, as a player, to motivate those cowardly/selfish players to coorporate and work as a team, even destroyer players for the most part appear not to want to take any risk and enter objectives rather the stay outside and try to farm damage either by long range torp spam or HE from smoke spam. The majority of the high tier population now only tend to their short team goals of damage and XP farming which this cowardly camping game style reward the players with, rather than rewarding for playing to win/playing the objectives, which makes the endgame of World of Warships pointless and futile to participate in. I honestly have no idea on how to change the current meta/situation but I fear that it originates in the very core mechanics of the game as well as the selfish, not to mention impulse and fear driven nature most people have; of which the first mentioned can be fixed and the latter only to a certain degree manipulated succesfully with. Anyway something has to be done with the camping meta in the game and instead the game has to be oriented towards an aggressive playstyle and reward that more than camping hard if the high tier meta, in particular, game style of WoWS is to be fun, entertaining and challenging instead of stale, frustrating and tedious.

Sounds like the best entertainment in that game came from the heated exchange of harsh words. I can't understand why people freak out and take offence over anonymous people venting and slinging verbal abuse at other anonymous people. It is nothing but words and words can only hurt if you chose to let them do so - it is nothing but spice to life and pure entertainment and the saltier and colourful it gets the better the entertainment.

Sorry sarcasm doesn't translate well in writing.

Point is that OP did not use the signal at all.

Remember: CVs force teamplay and punish campers...Oh wait!!?!

Alabama is the more pleasureable of the two to play; better acceleration, faster rate of turn and ruddershift time makes torpedobeats and brawling so much easier. Guns have lower velocity and pen but it is better at making plunging fire citadels on BBs as well as side penetration citadels on medium ranges because of the more curved trajectory. This is offset by lower maximum range and worse accuracy which will result in lower hit rate. AA is more or less identical to NC, Iowa and Missouri. Also you get to encounter and raep tier 6 and the occasional tier 5 when someone makes fail division. I'd recommend the USS Alabama over the Missouri as the tier 9+ are usually ultra camp fests especially on Tears Of The Desert epicancer mode.

110 coins here, however the low value contra the massive effort it requires to get 800-900 coins, not to mention I have the Kamikaze R already, makes me take a break from the game untill the event is over. Fulltime work hours required for less than a total of 10 euros worth of winnings - I mean really?

^I would cry too

Forgive me for not listing the sources but they take the space of 2½ pages, however we can compare the authors claim with publicly available sources such as wikipedia and navweaps.com to be able to see if there are major discrepancies. With regards to ranges and angles: If we take the ranges first: HMS Hood blows up at 06:00, author's estimated range from Bismarck to Hood: 15,200m. If we look at the salvo chart from the HMS prince of Wales we can see that the range at 06:00 to Bismarck is 16,450 -16,300 yards or 15,000m - 14,900m but since that is when the Hood blows up we should probably use the range taken the minute before which is 17,100 yards or 15,600m. The author's estimated firing range at 15,200m to HMS Hood from the Bismarck does appear to be correct; actual gun range setting would have been lower due to closing distances and given the 28kts speed of the british force and the distances a couple of hundreds lower gun range setting is not far fetched. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/090102_PoW_gunnery_plot.png At that range the deck penetration of the 38cm/52 SK C/34 would have been between 20-75mm, @4,6 and 18km respectively which would probably place deck penetration at about 50-60mm for the 38cm APC. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php Angles: The author assumes Hood's aspect angle to be 63.2 degrees at the point of impact and a vertical striking angle at 10.6 degrees while assuming that the Hood was upright and did not roll or pitch. This gives the APC's striking angle of 63.2 degrees measured from Hood's bow and a downward 10.6 degrees. The author estimates that the APC shell had to penetrates 340-370mm of armour before detonating the 4 inch magazine and assumes that the shell did not shatter when penetrating. When consulting the 38cm/52 SK C/34 APC shells vertical penetration ability is listed to be between 616 to 419mm for 4.6 and 18km respectively which puts the maximum of 370mm armour to penetrate well within the capabilities of the 38cm APC shell. I don't see any major flaws with the author's conclusion as the parameters he uses appear to be valid and I am convinced that he has a strong case for his conclusion.