Lexmechanic

I would still like to know if watching CCs counts as well.

Sounds like a unicum ship, otherwise no pen and instant incoming cit to oblivion, with no margin of error. Do I see correctly that the Dreadnought is only available in a bundle with the Vanguard?

Give it the shortest smoke in the game, so it can at least have a chance to reposition with its "great" speed, or just put it out of its misery :(.

Dear Wargaming, can you please take a look at this piece of s**t of a destroyer and fix it? It doesn't work, it doesn't perform in stats, it's clearly broken.

I still love my Fiji but the Neptune is a garbage fire. Such a downgrade compared to the Edi with its "visible from orbit" concealment and a citadel that begs to be hit.

I would recommend the Zao, the Moskva and the Hindenburg from the least to most tanky. The Moskva can tank quite a lot if angled right but she's less of an independent open water ship than the Hindy. Zao is squishy but hits quite hard. One option I don't have firsthand experience with is the Henri IV, it has the highest salvo alpha damage so perhaps someone can weigh in.

I've been looking at the 3 popular Premium choices: Giulio, Revolutsiya and Texas. The GC is fast but its guns seem unreliable and underpowered, the Texas is so slow it can barely get to the battle in time and the Revolution burns like kindling. Those are my impressions which immediately tells me I must be doing everything wrong :). Any tips for making the allegedly OP ships work?

I bought it just to have some fun with the speed. I'm not going to complain about wasting money as I wouldn't buy it if I couldn't afford it. Still, other than the speed gimmick, this ship is utter crap and has no consistency to do well, especially in PVP of any kind. So yeah, I'd love to know how it was *supposed* to function.

I would consider getting the Tzar Alexander commander (can't get too many US & USSR captains) but NOT bundled with the most underwhelming containers in recent memory.

I really don't want subs in the game but to my surprise, they're not fun to play at all. The whole 'freediving' because it's so short, is silly, all the fires while submerged are arbitrary. Sure, the attacks are fun when/if they land but there's no advantage over doing that with a Destroyer which doesn't have to deal with clunky gameplay. From me it's another resounding NO. I'll keep playing to get as much feedback as I can, of course.

I've been getting better results in the GC but man, sometimes those guns feel like toys and a moment later you get hit for half HP. I still see more ORs than any other BB.

Looks like a bad T9 cruiser is more of a rule than an exception. As much as I love their respective older siblings, I hated the Seattle and the Neptune with no love lost between me and the Roon. Thus far only the Donskoi proved a fun T9 cruiser.

Nerfing the Seattle, even though it's "just" radar, is like picking on blind kids.

It's still a fun ship to play against DDs and if you end up in a good position, those torpedoes are murder. But man, if you get caught in the open by a gunboat with better firing arcs, the HP pool will still melt because of how huge a target you are.

I'm only halfway there but I've got my sights set on the Salem for now. My main problem with the DM is overextending "just a little bit" so the better heal should really help.

Seriously, the Worcester is love, the Worcester is life. Spare yourselves the pain and freeXP up to it.

I bought the big container pack (I wanted the camos anyway) and I've got the T5, 6 and 7 missions. I've earned a bunch of RN containers since then, no Lightning in sight.

Single-launch torps are so much fun but what I love about them the most is the sound of their guns. Powerful, dangerous. The overall flavor seems to be "really scary camper DD" :).

I'm not touching the camo/graphics mods, but the interface improvements are priceless. I just struggle a bit to make use of the Zeiss/Zoom mods properly. Are they purely for sniping?

Seems like a very simple idea to implement, too. I would love to have something like that.

"Please god, no, please" - me, on subs in PVP

It would be really easy to make 'mute' or 'block' affect pinging.

I don't hate lootboxes. I'm just bitter that when (some) games had reasonable paid DLC, people overreacted and treated them the same way as the infamous horse armor. So now instead of paying for what we want, we pay for a lottery ticket to maybe get what we want, eventually. That's what makes "but players want it" argument shaky for me in the discussion about submarines.

I just wanted to register my voice against adding subs to PVP. One of the big draws of WoWS for me is the unique focus on surface fleet battles. I understand "players want" submarines but in the history of games giving players exactly what they wanted didn't always turn out well for said games. If the WoWS playerbase really is older and more mature, as can be read in recent media coverage, I'm pretty sure many of them won't enjoy a class built on surprise and very well suited for griefing or disruptive play. I hope I'm wrong and I'll play the Halloween special a lot but I see subs as a threat to what's unique about Warships.

I have to disagree. Despite my better judgment, I tried to make it work. Firing angles are crap, reload is slow, the ship is huge.. After a decent game where I supported the team a lot, some rank 1 guy asked in chat why I was wasting time with the Seattle and that I should just upgrade and stop suffering. So I did. The Rooster is a monster, so much more comfortable to use, Seattle feels like someone tied your hands behind your back in comparison. It was the same for me with the Neptune: I know some people can play it very well but for me it had very little in common with playing the Minotaur.