philjd

Hi, he gives bonuses in Turret traverse - useful for both trees other than the Minotaur, T10 cruiser (it still benefits, but the improvement is marginal at best, it doesn't need that boost). Jack of all trades - useful for both trees Smoke size - useful for cruisers but not for BBs. So, optimum usage in cruisers T2-T9 Full usage cruisers T5-9 take your pick :)

Quite a number of us were stating prior to Alpha that if you wanted a surface ship combat, then WW1 would be better era as no CV's to add to the 'complexity', but.... WW2 is a much bigger 'seller', so.... here we are, we have a game with a flawed cv system, which presumably will get fixed at some stage. (not a whinge over CV's being in the game, just that it is obviously that their mechanics are difficult to fix as structured when the game launched).

Yup, 4.5k damage per torp on the belt, so not really high damage torpedo's even without the reduction (air launched are lighter than ship/sub launched ones so this is to be expected I guess).

wow...8 torp hits on a Yamato and it is still alive....after alpha damage only.

Unlocked my Minotaur sunday, played a battle, SC inbound.. 25 wyverns.... woo-hoo. :)

er, nope - they have already gone down that route with the ship modules and that was scrapped because they give "unfair" advantages. Stick with them to get the woefully OP Flint, that should be enough of an incentive as well as the bragging rights. What they could do ...is once a player has received the Flint, they only keep it until the end of the next ranked campaign and if they do not achieve rank 1, they lose it.

Sort of in response to both. The killer for BB's was the torpedo, which could be carried much more efficiently in smaller craft (including aircraft). But torpedo's were in very early development during the start of the 'dreadnought' era, and never replaced other weapons systems entirely due to the limitations of that weapon type (eg you can't shoot a land target, range, targeting). For gunfire, the larger the caliber the greater the accuracy over distance - so could land more weight of shell on a target, even though fewer shell's in number landed, assuming both had the range, but actually more 'bang'. eg, one of the design considerations for Dreadnought herself was to load her up with multiple 6" guns. It then comes down to how much 'ship' do you need to carry even larger gunnery systems, which is why BB's were effectively limited to 16", barring the Yamato's and design studies. Edit Let me ask a simple enough question - how many HMS Norfolk's would it take to sink a Bismarck, or conversely, how many DD's? Or turn that around, how many Bismarcks would it take to sink 1 CA, or 1 DD.

Broadly agree in principle - which is why Fisher headed down the blue water/brown water route - BB's for deep water fighting, DD/Cl/Subs for shallow waters (eg North Sea). BB's (BC's) remained a better fighting platform though. In broad terms you could get 2 or 3 contemporary CA's per BB for the same cost, so they have inherently more coverage. BB's were not displaced by CA/CL/DD, but by CV's who could reliably deliver much more bang for the buck over a much greater distance. (But anyway, this is woefully off topic, I was just intrigued by the detail of the Q posed).

Not wanting to intrude,but the Q intrigued me a bit. Capital ship v's cruiser or DD force, which is better in battle - did some quick skimming. Matapan aside. Falkand Island, WW1 - BC V's CA (well AC rather), BC won. 2nd Narvik, BB v's DD, BB won Arguably Sch/Gneis against Glorious+2 DD, BB/BC won Heligoland Bight - BC V's CL, BC won 1st Naval battle of Guadalcanal - BC v's CA - mixed bag, but BC "won" until the incapacitated Hiei was sunk by A/C following day.

^

Had that happen to me last night in my Minotaur - game locked up my PC shortly after the start of the battle, had to reboot, by the time I managed to get back into the game my Mino' was back in port. Only 1 report though....

Must have missed that classic - which BB was it supposed to be?

Mr Conway, with respect - consulting with various clans over how to structure clan wars is a good approach, no consensus being reached over stuff like what maps to use etc etc, would be a PIA and no doubt go down to something like a 'randomly select from the contentious ones'. I really understand that approach. But, to be honest, to remove a full class of warships from the first full clan wars season, that players will have put a significant amount of time, effort, and no doubt cash into progressing and perfecting (or not) - there are times when there is a right answer and a wrong answer that 'consensus', to be honest is irrelevant on, leave them in, let "us" play them in what will be the first full season, then let the stats show the results. Not having them in, will still be fun, competitive and no doubt rewarding for those participating, but is not the game that we play as; 1) CV's are not present 2) the players who specialise on CV's have been discarded totally, unless they drive a class of ship that is not their primary interest. 3) This first season will remain a total aberration when CV's are added in, unless they are removed from the game entirely.

Who do WG get to make decisions such as this one? A good clan will beat your average 'casual' clan in 90% (speculative) of the battles whether they have a CV or not, 7v7 with a 1 BB limit protects against CV activity as 5 DDs is extremely unlikely. So why, just why... senseless and insulting.

A new personal best base xp of 3950 (hey, it's good for me!) https://replayswows.com/replay/5918#stats

Op - try this guy for some tutorials and guides - he's one of the top CV payers in the game. https://www.youtube.com/user/farazelleth/videos With videos ranging from the absolute basics through to as advanced as you want to get with CV's.

Just seen Tyrendian89 on Ice islands - bad battle, the enemy team folded very quickly. He drove his Z-46, myself Harekaze. Enemy team dies before I got there (fired only about 4 shells at a DD). Also saw Absolute_justice in his Hakuryu on Ridge, I was in the Mogami, good fight by all, green team won.

During this last week or so - switching the game off (Had a truly bad week in game)

On the minimap expansion - don't forget to change the transparency of the map, as it will block totally your view of the main UI screen where covered - if it is transparent, then you can still see behind it.

No Need to worry, it is synthetic pixellated oil, no environment was harmed in either the extraction process or the usage,

removed - hur-dur moment.

HE shell keyring offer here "free with you next full price purchase". And a few email offers from young russian ladies who aren't Dasha... so binned those.

I used to be on the side of the pro-detonations, for my sins: yes they are realistic, even a near miss by HE should/could cause one against weakly armoured ships (splinters as well as blast, why splinter decks/protection was added to most warships that had the capacity to take them). But it is harsh for a game, too harsh.

Ok, so explain your reasoning as to 'why' there should be a guaranteed win situation in a 1 on 1 scenario (or 'some' 1 on 1 situations)? (I know it is a team game and all classes/ships have their own advantages/weaknesses within that overall meta, but I fail to understand 'why' certain ships have a need to be almost unbeatable in a 1 on 1 situation).

Any mechanic that provides a 100% guaranteed win situation in a 1 to 1 should not be in the game, is/was my beef with the stealth firing that was removed. Similar situations, Cruiser being citadelled by BB, DD stealth torping, even CV cross dropping torps can be mitigated/avoided, nothing to be done against stealth firing unless the stealthy ship makes a total f'up, which is unlikely. I think I have been 'farmed' by this mechanic once, in my Atlanta, in a 1 on 1, even if the DD hadn't been stealthing, I doubt 'Lanta's guns in my hands would have been able to reliably hit her at that range, but at least I could have tried to. (and yes, 'in my hands' could be abused by a L2P plonker type response).