G01ngToxicCommand0

I thought it was pretty obvious that it means that the relative weak deck armour is not to blame for the sinking of the HMS Hood - guess it wasn't. The consequence of this is obvious; it means that even if HMS Hood had completed the turn to port she would only had made it easier for the Bismarck to sink her and that the Hood would probably had been better off by bow tanking as the Bismarck's AP shells could not penetrate her decks from that range as she was in the immunity zone for deck penetrations from the 38cm/52 SK C/34 guns of the Bismarck. Fill out the rest of why that is important your self as it is quite self explanatory.

Nagato is stronger on its own tier than Mutsu is due to better armour and is better at being low tier than Mutsu.

You simply aren't capable of grasping that Wargaming markets its games to the casual audience i.e. the lowest common denominator and consequently it will hurt their earnings more to balance their games based on how good players perform than to balance it based on how the average low skill players perform. WoWS is not a game targeted towards good players as yourself, as your stats indirectly imply, for if it was your winrate would be close to 50% simply due to a higher percentage of skilled players competing against each others. You really have to do a objective analysis of WoWS as a game and its intended audience and you should remember that this exact point was also a disscused topic in CBT. You are not the primary intended audience; the far greater number of BB Kevin/40-47% winrate players are and the game is balanced with those players in mind which you should have been able to conclude when looking at the patch and balance history of WoWS.

I just finished reading a book on the Bismarck VS. Hood engagement at the Denmark Strait titled Bismarck and Hood by Marco Santarini ISBN: 978-1-78155-231-5. It deals with the battle in a highly technnical way and is definately not for the casual reader. Long story short is that the conclusion is that the AP shell, or AP shells, fired from Bismarck did not penetrate through the action of plunging fire but from the side through the side/belt armour and into the 4inch magazine which in turn set of the 15inch magazine. This conclusion is reached, and logically explained so, by the fact that at the range that Bismarck hit HMS Hood the shell's angle of impact was about 10-11 degress from the horizontal plane thus it did not have a high enough deck penetration to reach the 4 inch let alone the 15 inch magazine. There might have been a second AP hit to the forward 15 inch magazine as that blew up as well as concluded by survey of the wreck of the HMS Hood as the author considers that more probable than flash from the rear magazine propagating to the forward through the engine and boiler room spaces which were all enclosed spaces. However there is no way to determine that due to the state of the wreck of HMS Hood which is in utter ruin. *EDIT* I forgot to say that is a very interesting book and I highly recommend it if you want to learn the technical aspects of the battle and naval warfare theory but if you are more comfortable with a more classic historical description of the battle with a relative low level of technical detail then this book is not for you.

That is not a bug but a feature, it happens when you aim too low at the waterline.

No, the fail comes from you because you fall prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect and you are not aware of that. You are a good player with a thorough and good understanding of the game mechanics and how much team play affects the game's outcome but you are incapable of understanding that good players, like yourself, are not the norm but the exception and that the bad and low skill players are the norm and not the exception and what impact that have on the game and its development. You fail to realise that the majority of the playerbase is incapable of ever reaching the level of understanding of the game mechanics and game meta and the ability to use those to the fullest, like yours, yet you expect them to be able to, if only they can be educated enough. Well they can't because most players are bad, nothing more to it than that. This is why it is fail from you to expect that an extremely powerfull and dominating class like the CV class can be balanced; you simply forget that most players are incapable or unwilling to play the game according to how you believe it best to be played or reaching the same profficiency level as your own high one. The vast majority of the playerbase are vastly inferior to your skill and understanding and will never be able to play the game as you want it to and it doesn't matter if your suggestions on how to balance CVs are the optimal ones based on a player base of your own skill and knowledge level, when the majority of players are way below that. It simply wont work because you have unrealistic expectations to what the player base is capable of. WoWS can only be balanced from the perspective of the lowest common denominator and in such an enviroment, superpowerful classes such as CVs simply can not work in the random game mode, because the average player is not capable of dealing with them as good players can which makes it theroretically impossible to balance such a class simply because the class will always either be UP or OP depending on the players it is placed against - there is no golden middleground or perfect balance achievable here because of the vast difference between good and bad players and that is what you have to realise and accept. The gameplay is dumbed down and ultrasimplistic because it has to allow for bad players to play the game and that makes it intrinsicly impossible to have complex and high APM/OCD/autism spectrum skill type classes with the abilities of the CV and have them work in a game enviroment where 80-90% of the player population aren't capable of counterplaying it.

The first time you recieved 10 Juliet Charlie flags and you didn't put them on your Shima so you detonated and second and third time. Now you have 30 Juliet Charlie signals you can place on the Shima so that she can not detonate.

If you crosscheck WoWS wiki and navweaps.com it seems that the Yorck uses the Blücher 21cm guns: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Yorck http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_827-45_skc05.php I hope this answer your question? P.S. You mentioning SMS Blücher makes me sad because WG will never introduce the dreadnought era of armoured cruisers to the game

Historic interest.

Please tell how you will balance a class like carriers against a player base that, on average and for whatever reason, do not team play, or in the case of CVs being balanced against the average 'no team play' teams how you will balance CVs against teams that actually team play? Quite the dilemma as you can't do both at the same time isn't it? The point is that it is not possible to balance CV for the kind of random game modes that WoWS have and people have to realise that this CVs will never work as envisioned because players act chaoticly and random and that most players do not play to work together with other people but plays to shoot other people and care nothing about team play whatsoever.

Perhaps the game just need historical missions like "Hunt the bismarck" for example where the players can recreate, sort of, historical battles using the historical ships as far as that would be possible or "what if battles". No one says that WoWS game mode always have to have 12 VS 12 players or equal number of players on each team, it should be both possible and feasible to make teams based on ship values.

[edited]

My wallet is ready.

LOL, so much fail there my mind hurts.

But you are only looking at this issue from a CV player's perspective... 95% of the players do not play carriers and I'd venture a guess and say that most of them wants them removed from the game so that CV players will have to play something else than their "I want to be able to strike everyone with impunity and dominate everyone else" ships.

And in reality BBs should hard counter BBs as that were their primary targets, before the fleet carrier as class surplanted them as strategic weapons, and that is also how they were primarily used IRL untill they were relegated to performing AA protection and bombardment duties only.

Closed Beta Test was a tight knit group of players that more or less knew one another and when pressing start there were almost always more than one you had played with before and a maximum of about 2k players were online on any given day. The CBT forum was known and read by a far higher percentage of the CBT players than now meaning that p.t. a far smaller percentage of the player population knows about game meta, game guides and do not understand how the game is 'supposed' to be played. Applying the experience from CBT to now is simply fallacious because the player population is now approximately at least 10 times larger than in CBT with a far greater variation in background, skill level, motivation and knowledge of the game's mechanics and purpose compared to CBT. There simply is a far lower percentage of players that for various reasons either wont or can't team play and that can not be changed, meaning that the kind of teamplay you envision for WoWS is theoretically impossible because the player population is now represented by society's 'average' person which is reflected in the player population's normal distribution. The player population in CBT did not reflect the 'average' player rather it reflected the above average which is why you can't compare the two. Teamplay online can not be forced and if you try to the players will find other online passtimes, it is that simple. If you want teamplay you have to design the game so that the game naturally lead to teamplay which is something none of Wargamings titles do. And you are wrong about carriers, the concept was flawed from the beginning and can not be balanced because it is class that can strike with impunity while also having the ability to determine the outcome of the battle single handely. You can not balance a god against mortals of which CVs are the gods. Wargaming has completely misunderstood the real world purpose of carriers which was and is a tool for strategic power projection and which during WW2 had completely displaced the battleship's role as the tool for global power projection. The large fleet carriers were strategic weapons first and foremost and tactical weapons second and simply did not work as WG has implemented in the game where multiple waves of attacks is possible, which in real life weren't over the time span of the typical battle where one and two strike waves were the norm. Fleet carriers were first and foremost used to destroy enemy strategic targets such as enemy fleet carriers, battleships. major harbours and only attacked cruisers, destroyers and auxilliaries as targets of opportunity. In WoWS the latter ships are the primary targets which is utterly ridiculus and stupid given the real world usage and purpose and as we can observe in the game; fleet carriers trying to destroy their real world primary target, the enemy fleet carrier, is so rare that it is a non issue and completely outside the real world intended purpose and application of fleet carriers. CVs in WoWS are strategic weapons pressed into a tactical setting which by default makes their destructive potential and game influence far greater than everything else in the game and it makes as much sense to have them in the game as submarines do - which is none. And as we can see the result is this: The carrier players do not attack their real world primary target(s) because the game rewards them higher for killing ships they IRL would only attack as targets of opportunity due to their far lesser strategic value, which by default makes the class one made for stat whoring and seal clubbing where teamplay is only secondary to killing defenceless low value targets. In short Wargaming made the CV a class to dominate all others in a MMO, a game genre where equal influence on game play is the keyword for balanced and popular games, where all empircal data shows that such a class in any MMO only leads to toxicity and angy and frustrated customers which is bad for business. And now WG have done it twice, first arty in WOT and now CVs in WoWS. Fleet carriers do not belong in the tactical setting of WoWS and they have to be removed from random games because they are poison to everyone else but CVs. Instead give them their own game mode of fleet carriers VS fleet carriers with escorting ships so that people who want to play carriers can do so against their intended targets and goal; enemy fleet carriers as a tool of strategiv power projection. In that way the battle of Midway and many more can be recreated game experience wise, which presumedly is why players wanted to play carriers to begin with. If players argue against that being the only game mode for fleet carriers then it can only be because they play CVs in order to stat whore and dominate other players without fear of retalliation which makes the 'carriers force team play' nothing more than a buzzword intended to keep an imbalanced class in the game in order to perpetuate stat whoring, seal clubbing and a 'strike with impunity' mechanics for a select few that gets their rocks off on that style of gameplay.

And this has nothing to do with that being in Close Beta Test where the participants were better than the average low skill player? It is like saying that a particular ship is OP based on the performance of the really good players only. And the games in CBT weren't that good either, it is just memory bias on your part I'm afraid.

What should make the players chose cruisers over battleships or destroyers? Other than historical reasons cruisers really have nothing going for them that can't be done between BBS and DDs that gives the players no good reason to pick cruisers over any other type of class. Unless making major changes to the core game mechanics and core game modes I can't see no reason why players should or would pick a cruiser instead of a BB, I do but that is because of historical reasons and the challenge playing cruisers present, but then I am a masochist.

That is a misconception. Most players either can't or don't want to team play as can be observed when using the ingame tools for using team play i.e. team chat and the "Capture/defend objective" etc. etc. The vast majority of players simply do not team play which is probably why WG have not implemented in game aids or guides. Even players that you can communicate with on the team chat rarely respond and usually only when team is losing and they begin blaming others. It is a massive dellusion to think that team play can be an integral part of WoWS because that is simply not what motivates the vast majority of players to play WoWS, they are here to shoot stuff and nothing more really. In this context it is self illusory at best to think that an imbalanced class as the CV is, can force team play by having the ability to delete isolated ships with impunity. The class, as implemented now, has only one positive feature which is for stat whoring which is only positive for the stat whores, game play and game experience wise it is an absolute disaster that only serves to make people leave the game and there is no real good reason to have CVs in the game other than for historical reasons, which by WG's admission, is at best secondary to balance.

^This. But it wont make more cruiser players though..

Simple facts with online gaming, WoWS oriented: 1) You can't force teamplay unto players, if they don't want to or in any other way are incapable of team play, they wont. Period. There is no way, no game mechanic, no verbal abuse, no positive encouragement that can force players to team play. This hasn't and is not going to happen with CVs in WoWS either so that old "argument" that CVs force teamplay is nothing more than either a misconception of what is possible with regards to MMOs and team play or a blatant lie meant to disguise the fact that the class is used to statwhore in. 2) All good MMOs use a balanced risk VS reward mechanics approach because using imbalanced setups such as 'no to low risk - high reward' only make the players frustrated and angry and less prone to spend money when encounter players that can strike them with impunity. This is basic psychology and it is either through incredible incompetence or by malignant design meant to create a hostile and toxic game enviroment if such an imbalanced risk VS. reward is used. 3) There is no way to force players to play a less played class like cruisers in WoWS. Period. Cruisers will forever be the second least played class in WoWS and there is no point in trying to change that fact, because it is not going to happen - the class simply do, bar a few famous ships, not hold enough attractive features or exciting history to make them interesting enough for the majority of players. The cruiser as a class simply do not hold the appeal or game value as BBS and DDs and most peoples' knowledge of famous warships are limited to battleships which naturally limits the number of players wanting to play them. Btw: Respect for being honest about wanting CVs to be OP and used for statwhoring by preying on the weak, it takes guts to stand up and defend a class by saying it is supposed to be insanely OP and that all others just have to accept that.

Your analogy is wrong. Translated to other classes the modules and skills would increase the damage on and probability of destroying modules, not increasing the probability of flooding, fire and more damage against ship HP; Why? Because strike and fighter aircraft are modules, not ship HP which is completely analogue to main gun and secondary batteries as well as torpedolaunchers and AA guns as they serve the same purposes: to deal damage against ships and aircraft. There is no difference between a CV that has lost of all its planes and any other class of ship that has lost all of its damage dealing modules and it is time that the notion that aircraft equals CV ship HP - they don't.

@OP, I made this reply on your second identical topic: This is not a new discussion, this has been discussed again and again and again. The carriers can not be properply balanced within the confines of random games and players as the developers will have to either balance the class for Ranked, Clan Wars/team battles or random games. It is not possible to balance the class for all types due to massive skill level differences in the player base and the chaotic nature of MMOs. It really is simple; if WG balances CVs for random play they will have to factor in that players in general do not team play, but rather just sail randomly around shooting at what is in front of them. If the CVs are then balanced for that kind of game meta then they wont work at all if playing against teams that actually team play which makes it frustrating to play CVs but not the other classes. If on the other hand the CVs are balanced against teams that team work they will utterly wreck and destroy any and all ships that are outside a strong AA umbrella and as that is how the vast majority of players play WoWS this will completely ruin the game experience for 90+ % of the playerbase as well as game balance and will lead to ultracamping games where no one dares move out of spawn. Either you balance the class for non team working random team and the CV class will suffer when facing organised enemies or you balance it for team working teams and the vast majority of the playerbase will suffer, there is no golden middleground because there are only two extremes to chose between. And then we haven't even mentioned differences in individual CV players' skille level which p.t. have an extreme influence on battle results.

This is not a new discussion, this has been discussed again and again and again. The carriers can not be properply balanced within the confines of random games and players as the developers will have to either balance the class for Ranked, Clan Wars/team battles or random games. It is not possible to balance the class for all types due to massive skill level differences in the player base and the chaotic nature of MMOs. It really is simple; if WG balances CVs for random play they will have to factor in that players in general do not team play, but rather just sail randomly around shooting at what is in front of them. If the CVs are then balanced for that kind of game meta then they wont work at all if playing against teams that actually team play which makes it frustrating to play CVs but not the other classes. If on the other hand the CVs are balanced against teams that team work they will utterly wreck and destroy any and all ships that are outside a strong AA umbrella and as that is how the vast majority of players play WoWS this will completely ruin the game experience for 90+ % of the playerbase as well as game balance and will lead to ultracamping games where no one dares move out of spawn. Either you balance the class for non team working random team and the CV class will suffer when facing organised enemies or you balance it for team working teams and the vast majority of the playerbase will suffer, there is no golden middleground because there are only two extremes to chose between. And then we haven't even mentioned differences in individual CV players' skille level which p.t. have an extreme influence on battle results.