piritskenyer

Not gonna be able to finnish it. I wasn't bothering when I had the time, now that I would like to complete them, I don't have the free time. I would contract it out if I could

Kleiner Mich

Met Spellfire40 in his Amagi today while divisioned with T0byJug, but he didn't seem to notice us, even though we said hi

Well, this is what happens when you guys cry senselessly over and over and over and the devs get fed up with you. They put the real power in the hands of the Shima so you know what OP really is, so maybe you'll shut the [edited]up and L2P instead of whining about OP DD's.

Let's not foirget the better turret layout! /sarcasm Erm... Or not. I found her to be way worse to handle than the Atago, even though on paper she's got better radius and rudder shift. It's not as much evasive wiggling that is getting on my nerves, it's when I have to turn away from a fight and thereby having to expose my sides, even if in theory only for a little while. If I'm not already in a turn when broadside on to any enemy ship and I see them fire at me, all I can do is pray, because it's the only thing that's going to keep those shells from hitting me. All in all, after having played the Atago first, I have to say, even the fully upgraded Mogami feels lacking. Heck, even compared to the Myoko she feels lacking. It's not to say that she can't be very good occasionally, but she's a much less reliable platform than the Atago.

So the D.D.'s guns hae better armour penetration than the Kirov?

How well do the guns hold up at T9 (it's the same guns as on T5, right?)?

Would only be realistic if the BB's pressed P at the start

What a pity we don't have the QE class in the game to fire anniversary salvoes... Oh wait a [edited]minute...

Happy 90th to HM Queen Elizabeth II! /off

Okay, let me rephrase: your augmented turret turn rate is no good if you lose out RoF.

When you upgrade the hull and the guns, the turret traverse becomes much better. Blow free xp on her instead of money for a mod you'll have to destroy when you get the ship upgraded. IMO AA is going to be good enough if you have BFT. The guns will only get better: better AP dmg, pen and normalisation, but the HE will remain the same.

I'm a bit torn, but in the end I voted no. For T7, I definitely don't think the heal is needed. Most CA's on T7 have armour that is good enough to bounce glancing hits from 14" guns at mid to long range, or have the avoidance to get out from underneath the shells. The frequency at which they meet 16"-armed BB's is not that great, and in my opinion isn't severe enough of a problem to warrant the heal. On T8, however, in some instances I have thought of wanting to have heal myself. I'm still not sure T8 cruisers should all have heal, although them now being able to face T10's could/would warrant it. If we were to introduce now abilities for cruisers on T8, I'd rather suggest something like heal for CA's and smoke (with more than one charge) for CL's. Being an Atago driver myself, I see very well where the usefulness of healing on a T8 cruiser is (especially while I'm grinding the Mogami next to it, which doesn't have said heal ability), but I'm still completely convinced. Maybe that's the collector in me not wanting the Atago to lose her unique feature.

Or Cowpens, South Carolina, depending on who you ask. Regardless, it's a fun name, and her nickname is even more fun.

In all honesty, I want to have ships like the Cowpens for nothing else than their names. I mean if she wasn't a bloody CVL, I'd even play her. I mean with a name like that who wouldn'T?

I was just watching iChase's latest video and at the part where the featured player in his Benson loses 4 out of his 5 turrest and one of his two torp mounts I thought to myself that yeah, sometimes having spotting damage and spotting xp would be very very nice to have. I mean what else can you do if you lose 80% of your gun firepower and 50% of your torpedo firepower, basically rendering you useless for considered damage-dealing?

Sry if any of these have been asked before, but here goes: Q n°1: Have any of the ideas from the community regarding the plane-handling capacity of Tone been collected, and if so, been considered or at least reviewed?1 Q n°2: Is the Tone being tested currently, and if so, does she have a special ability relating to her plane-handling capacity? Q n°3: Is there any information on possible future RN, RAN, RCN and RNZN premium ships? 1: If needed, said ideas I can look up and compile for the EU staff to pass on to the DevTeam for review.

I have above avg damage and WR in the Mogami as well, but I still think she's pretty crap.

Seeing my rating being Unicum makes me warm and fuzzy. Seeing it steadily decrease makes me tap my head.

That, I'm afraid I really have no insight to, since I don't live in Britain and so I don't follow everyday life there. I guess you're right.

I have a little less than 7mil to go, but with the amount of time I get to play of late, I'm not sure I'll be able to rack it up. I'll try, but eh.

Warning: TL;DR post incoming. if you don't care, (sc)roll over. The reason why Britain did not preserve its historical ships like the US did, is mainly down to money. You have to remember a few things right off the bat: When WWII began, Britain was still recovering from the last war, the same way the French were (an important factor in their quick and hard fall, as a matter of fact, but not a subject for now), and, to a lesser extent, the Germans. Between the wars the British economy was starting to lag behind considerably. The main reason for that was the fact that the mainly exploitative colonial economy the Empire was running wasn't paying off the expenses and upkeep of keeping said empire. Before the First World War, then-FLotA Churchill supposedly said to Kaiser Wilhelm II that "For Britain, maintaining a large fleet is a nessecity, for Germany it is a luxury.". Indeed, if you look at it, before and during WWI, the general policy of the RN was to be in strength (not in numbers, in strength!) superior to the second and third largest navies combined. If you look at the sizes of armies, Britain only started out fielding about 100000 well-trained and well-equiped men at the beggining of WWI, in other words, the world's one and only fully professional army. Why? Because drawing away any more men from the home economy given the sheer size of the fleet was simply not sustainable. And yet, Britain went on to field huge field armies just like the French and the Germans did in WWI, and those men (the Brits anyway) were drawn away from the economic strength of Britain. How could she still sustain her war effort then? The aforementioned colonial economy. She basically switched from making anything she could have made elsewhere but in Britain to buying and taking it. How did she pay for it? All the things she could take from her colonies (food, raw materials, half-made or ready products) she took, all the things she couldn't she payed for with things gathered in the colonies. (I must add, that I'm not saying that in the context of "Boo, Britain the evil empire", it's just how things went.) At the end of the war, she still found herself endebted to the US and bled out in young men. Now where the difference between Germany and Britain is in that regard is that while Germany had war reparations to pay (which were suspended in 1929 if memory serves), Germany now had basically no army and navy maintain. Britain still had the Navy and her Army to look after. Germany was basically allowed to rebuild itself from scratch after 1929, while Britain was juggling to maintain an empire, a fleet to support said empire, and an economic crysis, while having suffered comparable losses in manpower and baby-making potential (even if not as big, I admit) as the Germans. When Britain entered WWII, her fleet was, simply put, getting old. The newest battleships of the RN when the war broke out were the Nelsons. And this war was going to be much more costly and exhausting than the one before it. I could go on with this forever and ever and still not finish, but to cut it short, the rason why Britain didn't preserve her old and famous ships was very simple: any ship that wasn't in a condition good enough to be preserved as-is, or in a condition that required little to no repairs to preserve wasn't going to get preserved. Most of the old battleships were at this point old and worn out, and Britain was neck-deep in debt to the US. There wasn't even enough money to refit some of the necessary ships, so refitting ships like Warspite, who had her last refit in '42 and was by now completely worn out, or Royal Sovereign who the Soviet sailors used as a shitting pot (much like the USS Milwaukee), just to preserve them as war emorials was out of the question. The treasury did the sad but sensible thing, and tried to squeeze a buck out of them, and sent them to scrap. As to why weren't the KGV's or Vanguard preserved? Same reason, with some more bitterness involved: At this time isn't Britain only losing her former colonial empire, and thus slowly turning even de jure into a middle power, but it is realised that the former symbols of power and greatness, battleships, are now really things of the past with no place in navies other than the now-almighty US Navy. Britain won't even place missiles on her BB's, because, well... it's not worth it. It's sad, but it's how it is. At the end of the day, we should all be happy to have what we were left with HMS Victory HMS Warrior HMS Caroline HMS Cavalier HMS Belfast HMS M33 And the civilian and post-war ships.

Enjoy!

Why is this tagged "Battleship survivability" in the Cruiser section? If you meant for this to be a battleship related thread you'll get potentially misleading info here.

Nelsol and Rodnol you mean?