G01ngToxicCommand0

Flashless powder for the artillery was used by the USN and RN which would reduce the range at which the muzzle flashes could be observed, smoke was still an issue though.

There is a vast difference in using land based artillery and naval artillery in the WW1- 1950's whose differences I'll try to describe below while omitting detailed but nonetheless important factors such as ambient temperature, gun barrel wear, muzzle velocity, humidity, the various atmospheric pressures it passes through etc etc. Land based artillery: In landbased artillery all you have to know is the position of the guns, the positions of the target, a map and the calculation and firing tables/fire control computers and you are good to go. This can be done observed, either by the artillery battery itself or by an artillery observer, such as one sitting in an oberservation baloon or unobserved using only the map coordinates as a target reference. Shooting at moving targets was only employed against larger formations and is nothing more than shooing at the coordinates the enemy is expected to be at x time in the future and as calculations took about 1-2 minutes depending on the time availble fire control technology there were no such thing as rapidly shifting fires if the target made unexpected turns or change in displacement speed. It was only in the 1960's with the introduction of proper fire control computeres that land based artillery could employ effective fire against platoon and section sized moving targets as it wasn't untill then that it was possible to recalculate the firing solution fast enough. Naval artillery: Naval artillery on the other hand requires a few more parameters in order to hit their targets. If using self observed fire against stationary targets the artillery has to have own speed and heading(if any), bearing to target and range. If using an artillery observer, or indirect, fire against a stationary target the artillery director requires own ship position, speed and heading(if any), bearing and range to target from the observers point of view and own bearing and range to the spotter so that the bearing and range to the target can be calculated, in order to calculate a firing solution. If the target or own ship is obscured by fog, smoke or rainsqualls or when employing indirect fire by use of an artillery observer against a stationary target, then the ships own position needs to be determined down to no more than a 1000meter/yards accuracy if area targets are to be engaged, such as town or cities and no more than 100 m/yards against point targets, if employing a fire by map method the same positional accuracy applies. If using self observed/directed fire against moving targets the artillery director requires the following data: Own ships heading and speed, bearing to target, range, the targets heading so that range and bearing rates can be be calculated. This requires multiple range and bearing taking that is then input into the fire control table or fire control computer. In the case of a ship having a fire control radar the same apply only that it add more data points over time thus giving a higher degree of accuracy and precision when calculating bearing and range rates than through optical rangefinders alone. if employing observer directed fire against a moving targets then in addition to having the bearing and range to the observer the range and bearing to the target from the observers point of view is also required. Until the introduction of sea and airborne radar if the spotter plane/baloon could not observe or be observed from the friendly ship there were no way to determine the range and bearing from the friendly ship to the target thus indirect fire against an enemy ship could not take place. Before wireless technology with plainspeech phones was introduced either air dropped handwritten messages or morse code was used as means of communication between observer and ship with obvious limitations and delays in collecting the raw data till they reached the artillery directors on the friendly ship. When radar was introduced the problem was that the information could not be transmitted fast enough to the fire control computers because the data had to be transferred by radio from observer to the radioroom on the ship and from there to the transmitting station to be entered in the fire control table/computer. The time from the raw data was collected to the time it was entered in the fire control table/computer was simply too long for it to make it practical or even theoretical possible to use indirect fire against moving targets at sea. In a fluid battle such as a naval battle is before the advent of datalink technology it simply wasn't possible or feasible to try to employ indirect naval gunfire against moving targets because of the date received from the observer was obsolete and worthless when they reached the artillery director. Naval artillery is an insanely complicated subject which in the end, even today, is more or less a matter of random chance if the shells hit a moving target where the most accurate firing solutions will get those few more hits connecting that will win the engagement.

Except the technology for the ability to do that did not exist until the late 70s/early 80 with the introduction of datalinks and accurate inertial navigation systems. The only way to shoot under limited visibility situations in the game's timeframe could only be done with radar controlled fire direction which only a few countries possesed at the time; it simply wasn't possible due to lack of technology to transfer data fast enough between ships and the ability to determine positional accurcy high enough for it to possible let feasible to even try. The mechanics are in the game for pure balance reasons which is OK I guess?

After having it played it for some games it is clear that it catches fire on a rate that reduces its ability to play as a brawler/tank even when maxed out on fire prevention and damage control and without doubt this will lead to a boring sniper meta for this ship. It is not like it has some OP special feature like the radar on the Missouri but rather it seems like the steel on it was made from matchwood. It feels like the probability for fire on the Alabama matches those of tier 5 or 6 rather than tier 8? Not only does it catch fire but the damage from fire appear to be ticking at a higher rate than usual but that may be confirmation bias due to the high number of fires it gets every single game. Perhaps reduce the probability of fire inflicted on the Alabama so it will be feasible to give close support to DDs and CAs rather than having to resort to range module, spotter plane and blue line sniping?

Cruiser consumables like Hydro Acoustic Sonar? I've heard uncorroborated rumours that some german BBs have that

AP bombs would logically and historically be able to deal citadel hits and cause flooding and fires as well as overpens making them the most potent weapon in the strike aircrafts' arsenal, which is probably why they aren't modelled in the game.

This is how I remember it, be it correct or not. The reasons as I remember it and in no particular order that teams did not reach those 1000 points were: 1) Because carriers were and I stress were too dominant and forced a passive play style on the players that prevented them from capping the objectives because isolated ships would fall prey to carrier strikes resulting in large groups of players huddling together in fear of a carrier attack while no one dared to attack or cap the objective(s). 2) Standard mode has always favoured a coordinated defending team against an uncoordinated attacking team, which it still does. 3) The game's core mechanics at the time, and now makes it far too easy to kill a player's ship making the risk in the risk VS. reward relationship the dominant one which inevitably led and leads players to adopt a passive playstyle where they take as little risk as possible and wait for the enemy to make mistakes for them to exploit. WG had to first introduce that points allways ticked in order to eliminate the draws then nerf the carriers in order to promote an aggressive playstyle, not that it worked though as camping is at an all time high. However that has nothing to do with carriers now but is caused by the core mechanics of the compressed map sizes, detection, artillery and damage models and that players are driven by base emotions such as fear, instincts and impulses they simply act on rather than using planning and deliberate action. I certainly agree that the CV as a class needs to be reinvented so that it has a place in the game but I am not convinced that it belongs in normal random game modes but rather it should have its own Carrier Task Force VS. Carrier Task Force random game modes so it can have a play style and game experience that fits its historically purpose and mission of a strategic weapon and tool of power projection that it completely sripped away from the battleship class. Should WG go that way it would also make it feasible to introduce CVL and CVEs into the game with different roles for the various types of carriers as I mentioned above. Obviously this introduces a risk of splitting the community but IMHO carriers are still neither fun to play or play against but I believe it will be worth the risk to try a completely different approach then trying to balance an intrinsicly extreme class where in one game it will be extremely dominant and in the next utterly newtered depending on a multitude of factors the player has no control over. I hope this makes sense?

Would be better if the players would have to push a 'Ready' button at game start and that the game could not start until every player had done so.

Was that way back when the game had a lot of draws because no one wanted to push objectives out of fear of carriers nuking them? I honestly can't remember carriers ever having a positive influence on the game except for spotting enemy destroyers capping the team's base when they made an attempt of ninja/late game capping. Don't get me wrong I am not up to starting another heated carrier shouting fest as we had quite enough of those but I really can't see how carriers as a class can force people to teamplay when all empirical data from MMOs show that teamplay is something that almost exclusively happens in organised team battles or clan wars/raids and not in random/pick up games due to the chaotic nature of random players, their motivation and skill levels. In CW/team battles I can see and understand why carriers are and will be an indispensable class that is required but in random games the carriers could be completely replaced by having player controlled scout planes and single use computer controlled dive/torpedo bomber consumables with far better balance and far less toxicity as a consquence. IMHO I think carrier game play would be far more entertaining and rewarding if the battle mode(s) for carriers always revolved around CV vs CV battles a lá the Battle of the Coral Sea/Battle of Midway style engagements with multiple carriers on each team where the destruction of the enemy carriers was the primary goal with capping objectives secondary to that. It would then make sense to intoduce CVL and CVEs as Carrier subclasses where the CVs act as the strike carriers while the smaller carriers act as fighter escorts and providing combat air patrol, or CAP for short, to the fleet. Manually bombing BBs or torping DDs trying to hide in their smoke screen is not my idea of a fun or challenging game experience and neither is playing as the BBs and DD where it is just frustrating to be able to do nothing to prevent or avoid the attack. The technical aspect of the carrier play's manual attacks isn't really fun or challenging but rather a question of muscle memory and experience with the different targets, the primary challenges being the ability to micro manage units, map awareness and resource management. Perhaps it is time to think outside the box for the dedicated carrier players instead of the usual '"buff this, nerf that", "CVs force players to team work", "CVs should be the primary damage dealers" etc. etc.'. Clearly CVs can't be balanced for both random and CW/team battles at the same time because of the chaotic nature of random battles and the random players therein and the consequences need to be drawn and acted on.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'delusional'? But it has always been like that with regards to what you describe when in a DD brawl; every enemy ship withing draw range could see you when you were engaged in a brawl with another DD bearing in mind that a brawl would be defined as the ships being within detection range of each other, firing their guns or not. The 20 second post shooting detection could be tweaked though and could be class dependant so that DDs have a shorter duration after firing their guns when they are detected?

Caveat: He has 17 battles in the Alabama and 214 battles in the NC. His North Carolina results are: 52% winrate. 56k damage/ battle. 25% main battery hit percentage and a peak damage of 206k. Tirpitz: 206 battles, 57% winrate, 66k damage/battle, 29% main battery hit rate and a peak damage of 174k Bismarck: 91 battles, 67% winrate, 81k damage/battle, 34% main battery hit rate and a peak damage of 215k Amagi: 14 battles, 29% winrate, 64k damage/battle, 31% main battery hit rate and a peal damage of 97k. Based on the results for his other tier 8 BBs bearing the caveat of limited number of battles played in mind I really don't see anything that suggests that the Alabama is performing worse than the other BBs.

Your results in the Alabama do not suggest that the ship is bad; 59% winrate 80k damage/battle, 30% main battery hit percentage and a peak damage of 139k damage - hardly results to expected from a bad ship?

Of course there will be issues caused by removing SF but those issues aren't apparant and can't be resolved unless SF is removed which I am sure Wargaming will do when they have the necessary data to act on. No one should expect that Stealth Fire will be reintroduced because that game mechanis is simply too imbalanced but rather should accept that fact and adapt to the new situation. If people are honest to themselves, how much differently do you really play now than before the removal of stealth fire?

To the OP, the mechanics in WoWS are interconnected meaning that changes in one game mechanic will cascade unto others. However the most influential of them all are the requirement that a game of WoWS can not last more than 20 minutes which in turn led to a requirement of the massive increase in artillery hit probability and the damage it deals which in turn led to the requirment of the game's detection mechanics or otherwise it would be impossible to cap objectives and battles would not last 5 minutes before one side had obliterated the other. This is where stealth fire comes in; the balance between teams will favour the one that has the most ships that can stealth fire because its lack of counterplay and capability to destroy the enemy with impunity and that is not good for the game experience because it reduces the influence on the battle's outcome that the non stealth firing ship have and this gives the players of those a poorer game experience than they otherwise could have had. Am I saying that there are no consequences for the game by removing SF? No I am not but the negative outcome of it is still better than leaving that mechanic in the game and that, for now, the players will have to adapt to the new situation untill Wargaming have had a chance to observe and analyse the effect of removing SF and then adjust whatever needs adjusting.

When you say the removal of SF is the worst thing that have happened to WOWS you should expect dissenting opinions and accept that others do not share your point of view. You have presented you point and I have presented a counterpoint - deal with it. And no, the removal of stealth fire is far from the worst thing that have happened in WoWS, quite the contrary actually IMHO. It was a bad mechanic because it allowed one player to deal damage to another player with impunity which is a type of mechanic that is very bad to have in a MMO as every play should always have a counterplay which stealth fire never had.

IMHO the worst thing so far is the citadel mechanics, that mechanic is far too punishing especially on high tiers which, in part, have led to the massive camp fests you see particulary in high battles. It would be better for the game's dynamics and the game experience to remove the citadel hit and replace a hit to the citadel area with the normal penetrating damage plus module damage effects and/or fire/flooding to whatever citadel space has been hit. This would allow the ships a little more staying power and the chance to get away, unless magazined obviously.

Could you move this topic to the Ships/Battleships sub board please as it really belong there? Thank you in advance.

Or perhaps I got that impression because she is very wide compared to her length and may take more hits than say the other tier 8 ships which naturally increase the number of fires? Anyway setting up the ship and the captain for full damage control/survivability does help but that obviously presents limitations other places such as AA/Secondaries range. concealment and the number of heals available. Overall the Alabama is definately worth the money and is a strong ship when showing the proper angle as the inclined belt is very good at deflecting shell when they hit an angle.

The best explanation on the subject I've seen so far.

You can't slander anonymous people...

It could a condition that the player has to have a tier 10 in port in order to buy tier 10 premium.

Perhaps I have been a victim of RNG but iChase seems to have a similar experience with Alabama:

Good points. And yes Yamoto is fat but her bum is not as fat as the Alabama's.

To be fair it has the lowest calibre main guns of any battleship in the game, not that it prevents it from being ungodly good though

Statistics would tell you that you should get 3-7 supercontainers per year if you receive 3 containers every single day of the year so there is no reasonable expectation to receive anything else than the normal non supercontainers.