G01ngToxicCommand0

Mainmast is placed on the rear of the smokestack while the Scharnhorst's is placed further aft giving it a more assymetric look and some minor superstructure differences. I am not aware of any other differences than that. It is just a "I like the Gneisesau's look more"..

The IRL 28cm version of the KMS Gneisenau with the atlantic bow as I find her more pleasing to the eyes than Scharnhorst which I love to look at Also throw in some permanent camos for the Scharnhorst please.

Very nice, decent being quite an understatement

Indeed, the rational choice would be to attack the closest targets as that result in more damage thus more XP and credits, while also conserving the planes better as the longer the flight to target the higher the probability of losing planes to AA/fighters.

I am not sure that range is the problem rather it is the short flight time of the shells that is. The compression of the map distances while providing short game duration also increases probability of hit with artillery due to the shells' shorter flight time to the target compared to IRL values where flight time for battleship guns for shooting at targets at 10km range would be about 13-15 seconds give or take and for 20km would exceed 30 seconds. For smaller calibers the flight time would be longer due worse velocity retention, usually that is but not always as it also depends on muzzle velocity. If the map compression was reduced in order to make the flight times longer it would increase ship survivability due to those taking fewer hits as it would be easier to dodge as well as misjudges in leading the target will result in more misses but it would also mean that either the game duration would also have to be increased or another way to balance the limitations in the range and thus number of strategic actions avaiable to the players will have to be introduced. Lesser map compression would mean a larger playable map area and longer ranges to the objectives which again means that there are less places the player can go to within the same amount of time which means that less strategic choices and actions can be made and that initial map deployment will make it harder to respond to actions on the other side of the map. So again we end up in a situation where we reduce or solve one problem only to introduce a new one...

How many of those battles were solo?

RN cruisers from tier 6 to 7, below that they are crap and above that the camping meta makes it crap but tier 8 CL is still fun to play just not as much as tier 6&7.

Don't underestimate your self; a potato would not have gotten that 150k and a kraken and WP on that POS map - I really hate that map with a vengeance when on epicancer mode

If at least it will give pure BB VS. BB teams that would be fine as those battles are quite fun

The guns used two different gun mountings and as the turrets are designed around the gun mountings new turrets would have to be designed to fit the 15" Mk1s.

Yes I mean that picture. It is not to be overly pedantic but the 4.7" SAP do not have a cap of any kind, it was made like the old style CP rounds. but I guess the RN weren't too stringent in their nomenclature as the 6" and above used a cap and/or ballistic cap and still called those SAP. Not very consistent but then it really isn't necessary to print the BC on a SAP shell with a cap when it is obvious that it has a cap I guess? From left to right: 4.7inch SAP(no cap), 5.25 inch SAP( with balliistic cap),6 Inch Common Pointed(with ballistic cap), 6 inch SAP/K( with ballistic cap ) the suffix K denotes that a colored dye is inserted in the void of the cap and a 8 Inch SAP( with cap and ballistic cap). I am not sure whether or not the 'envelope cap' as denoted on the 5.25 and 6 inch SAP shells acts as a cap as the low thickness and shape does not appear be strong enough to work as such? Anyway the british nomenclature with regards to CP/CPC/SAP/SAPBC appeared to be fluid to say the least:

From the navyweap source above: The 15" HE 6 CRH Mk VIIIb can be seen in a picture next to a APC MK XXIIb and is clearly a standard nose fused HE shell albeit probably with thicker shell walls in order to produce more fragments and add strength to the shell in order to increase penetration capabilities and this perfectly well explains the difference in explosive filler weight.. I am curious what you believe is the defining difference in technology and application between SAP/CP/HE with base fuse & SAPBC/CPC/HE with base fuse and cap?

Thanks, any offhand data in mind?

What I am a bit puzzled about is the, on paper, lackluster penetration of the BL 14/45 Mk VII APC VS. the 14"/50 Mk 11 when the performance is compared for nearly identical shell velocities and the penetration considering that the british MkVIIB APC with 721 kg weighs 6% more than the american one with 680.4 kg thus will have a momentum that will always be 6% higher than that of the US APC. Momentum for the uninitiated is measured in mass times velocity and is a measure on the ability for an object to retain and transfer energy in collisions. But what is listed is that the penetration for nearly identical shell velocities that the USN AP Mk 16 has a far higher penetration ability which it really shouldn't have as a heavier shell should per definition have superior penetration ability compared to a lighter shell at identical striking velocities due to a higher mass behind the striking area/higher momentum. The difference is 22% better performance for the AP Mk 16 at 20.000 yards@ 484m/s striking velocity giving the shell a momentum of 329k kg*m/s with 349mm of penetration VS the RN APC MkVIIb's performance of 476 m/s striking velocity with a momentum of 343k kg*m/s and a penetration ability of 285mm. This gives the Mk VIIb APC 18% less penetrative performance compared to the AP Mk 16 or the AP Mk 16 has a 22% higher penetration performance compared to the APC Mk VIIb depending on perspective. Given that the momentum of the APC Mk VIIb is 4.3% higher at 20k yards it should have a corresponding higher pentration ability due to its higher weight but it doesn't. The difference is significant to the point where it looks like something is wrong with the numbers IMO which is why I made this post. Either the british APC MkVIIb had a design weakness, poor quality steel/cap perhaps, that made it significantly underperform compared to the Mk 16 AP or the values are incorrect for empirically speaking the data shows that a heavier shell at the same striking velocities should perform better than a ligher one of the same caliber unless poor quality steel is an issue. Source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.php http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_14-50_mk11.php

I believe this to be true and it is indeed my experience that BBs earn far more XP for capping than DDs do. Perhaps going back to a higher reward to DDs for capping and spotting for the team would work?

Yes but you are missing the point that SAP = CP.

Actually there is pictorial evidence of british 15 inch CPC fired during WW2: First an image dating from WW1 showing a ammunition factory worker standing besides an assembled but unfinished 15 inch CPC shell. It can be determined with absolute certainty that the shell he is standing next to is a 15 inch CPC because of its length, the distance from the rear most driving bands to the base of the shell compared to an APC type; CPC lenght was 162cm, the lenght for the MK III/V 15 inch 4 CRH APC was 142cm and the driving bands are there placed much closer to the base of the shell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15_inch_Mk_I_naval_gun http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.php Pictures of real life 15 inch shells from first to last: 15 inch CPC as described above, 15 inch CPC fired by HMS Malaya february 9th 1941 against targets in or near Genoa, as can be proven by the distance between the rear most driving band and the base of the shell and the diamter to lenght ratio and lastly 15 MK XXII 6 CRH 15 Inch APC shells outside the Imperial War Museum, London.

Too clarify: German HE with basefuse and with or without cap/ballistic cap = CPC/SAP/SAPBC it is just the german term for the same thing. During WW2 the german 38cm/52 SK C/34 used a capped version of CPC and the 28cm/54.5 SK C/34 an uncapped version of CPC. There is no difference between CPC and german HE with basefuse, capped or not, the only difference lie in the national designation alone and it would make as much sense to say that a rifle is not the same as a Gewehr. Below are the full range of 38cm/52 SK C/34 and 28cm/54.4 SK C/34 shells, the middle ones in each set being the HE with basefuse/CPC/SAP/SAPBC:

the risk VS. reward factor also has an influence; the rational choice will always be to go for the action that provides the highest amount of reward with the lowest amount of risk and if the player have two or more choices where the difference in reward is not particular high but the difference in risk is, then that player would objectively speaking always pick the action that provides the lowest possible amount of risk even when the reward is lower than for actions that offer higher rewards but at a slightly higher risk, simply because the lower risk option allways deliver rewards which the latter may or may not do. One of the problems with WoWS, I think, is that there are too high a level of rewards for taking the low risk actions while the rewards for taking high risks are actually high and proportional to the high risk but the risk factor contra the reward one for taking low risk actions only makes the higher risk actions effectively force players to take the low risk options in the majority of times. One solution could be a complete removal of reward for low risk actions and then force players to take the higher risk ones but there would still be players that focus only on the risk factor in the risk VS. reward interaction and those players can never be motivated to take any kind of risk making this idea moot.

The decisions and actions of the very bad players have a greater influence on the battle outcome than that of above mentioned players. It may not appear intuitive or even obvious as to why but the chaos and entropy they create for their far outweigh that of what good enemy players can do. Bear in mind that the negavtive influence from a bad player can be as much as the enemy team having an extra 2-4 extra players while an extremely good player can perform equivalent to 1 maximum 2 extra players.

Do you mean like those 15" shells: HE L/4,5 base fuze - Spr.gr. L/4,5 Bdz (mhb) used on the Bismarck class and the and 15" CPC 4crh - 1,920 lbs. (871 kg) for the BL 15" mark 1 used on all the RN 15" battleships? Both the RN and the KM used 15 inch SAP rounds, they were called either CPC or Sprenggranate mit Bodenzünder, we just don't have those type of shells in the game. The SAP designation is a RN one made during WW2; CPC = SAP... All naval APBC had explosive fillers, the only types of APBC ones that didn't were landbased for tank/antitankguns only.

That a§§ is not a weakspot and I have yet to be citadeled or citadel other Alabama players from a raking shoting from the rear. I believe that it was explained elsewhere, can't remember the exact website though, that it has much better protection and that it is because of the limitations in the armour viewer that prevents us from seeing the entire armour scheme as it is?

What kind of game mode(s) would you like to play, how should it/they play and what would fit your playstyle?

I suppose this was inevitable given how people work but now it seems that the new trend for DDs is to camp as far away from the objectives as possible trying to farm damage with guns and torpedos at maximum range. Can't really say I am surprised but still.. Anyone have any good ideas on how to get those DD players that now camp to play the objective because I haven't the foggiest idea on how to motivate or convince those players to teamwork. TK'ing them would be the obvious choice but that really isn't a solution but a token of frustration. I certainly hops that this do not stick but only is a temporary FOTM untill people adjust to the removal of the stealth fire but if it doesn't, well...

Do you use a SSD or HDD? I use a SSD and do not have the problem you describe.