Historynerd

If you let yourself be provoked into TK, the fault is all yours. If you are so frustrated and irritated that you might do such a thing, stop for a while and blow off some steam, before returning to the game. I too can get pretty irritated at times, but I follow that system and it works like a charm. This way I'll never turn pink and I'll have fun here, instead of raging and whining like there's no tomorrow.

Let me get this straight... you think that the Regia Marina BB line would be a good line to "break in" new players or something? Not that it would be a bad thing, but I never saw it this way...

Apart from some issues at Tier 10, the Italian BB line comes without a problem...

Greedy much?

What can I say, it's the "boy who cried wolf" logic? But thanks, I saw it and found it interesting.

To be honest, I disagree with your analysis. - Accuracy: if you mean dispersion, it was partly caused by the high muzzle velocity, but also because of the uneven quality of either the shells of the propellant bags; during firing trials, where the firms were allowed to build well-made shells, the guns reportedly performed very well and were accurate. There were instances in which, owing to a proper batch of shells, the 381 mm fired decidedly tighter salvoes than in other occasions. We can't lay against them the fact that they never hit an enemy ship, since they never fired at anything bigger than a light cruiser. - Penetration: the uneven quality of the shells did not mean that the performance against armor suffered; while the HE shells did have issues because of fuzes that were too sensible, the Italian AP shells were reportedly very good, with even foreign tests confirming it. Their high value against vertical stands. - Protection: the Pugliese system was not a complete failure, it was a sound concept... until magnetic and duplex fuzes became available, since it meant that torpedoes could now explode under the hull, instead of having to strike it. On the modernized battleship its performance was bad because it had to be restricted to the pre-existing size, on the Littorios the only drawbacks was the construction methods that impaired its efficiency. However, it did perform rather well, if not in stopping the floodings (but that concerns also the security systems, which were reportedly inadequate, and would be corrected only gradually), in preventing serious damage to the hull structures and to the vitals inside (as it happened with Littorio at Taranto, and to the other battleships torpedoed during the war, and always managing to get back to port sailing at relatively high speeds). Nothing to say about the rest. Would it be fair to consider Richelieu in her 1955 configuration, where both the Bismarck and the Littorio didn't have that much time to get improvements (even in terms of AA armament, for example)? For example, the Littorio-class battleships might have received some new guns (substitution of the Breda 20/65 with the Oerlikon 20/70, fitting of the new and promising 65/64 gun,...) that would have at least improved her AA values. Taking into consideration that for a definitive hull form would be perfectly legitimate.

I was just pointing it out that the fact that his stats are not good is not relevant here. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable even if coming from the best player ever seen in the history of online gaming. That's all.

Even if he were a good player, and the other guy had refused to listen to him, his actions would have been wrong all the same. That's the issue here.

I agree; how successful a player is in the game is irrelevant when considering its behavior.

That is understandable, and if it's crystal clear that he is TK deliberately, then fire in the hole. But the OP didn't sink such a guy. He sank a guy that refused to do what he asked. Different story here.

So you answered to the abuse and the improper conduct of your teammates with your own improper conduct. The only appropriate comment that comes to my mind would be, "two wrongs don't make a right".

Was she asleep during the ceremony?

You're right. I must admit, for honesty's sake, that it took me a while to realize it.

I must admit that, perhaps infected by my WoT experience, I tended to share the mindset, and be somewhat upset when we won by capping. I was wrong; the dynamics are different, so this tendency should not in fact be encouraged. If there is the chance to get a clear cap, get it.

Sorry, nope.

Well, might as well... In truth, the Earth is flat.

I see. In that case I think you wouldn't like playing with the Italian 381 mm. Good vertical, but low RoF. Speaking of which, how do you think it fares against the 14-inch Mark VII? After all, the Littorio is commonly thought to be at Tier VIII...

That's what it seemed to me, too. So why did you say that it's inferior to Bismarck's 38cm?

...I wouldn't say that the 16-inch guns of the Lions would be worse... more or less same range, still somewhat inferior RoF, somewhat worse performance against vertical armor but a better one against horizontal armor.

...Which was armed with eight 15-inch Mark I guns, even older and less performant than the 14-inch Mark VII.

Aright... so, what would be a viable Tier 8?

May I ask why? Just for the lulz?

Well, the German 38cm had a slight advantage in terms of range, it had better RoF (without looking at the astronomical value obtained by Tirpitz during gunnery practice) and better performance against side armor, and pretty much the same against deck armor. So, I can agree that the 14-inch wasn't right there alongside the German gun, but it was a match. Besides, the weight of the KGV's broadside was superior to that of Bismarck. The 14-inch had a similar range to the 16-inch Mark I of the Nelsons, slightly worse performance against side armor and pretty much the same performance against deck armor, but it had better RoF. I'm not sure wheter it can be considered "not comparable"... So, not a killer gun, I agree. But neither a particularly underwhelming gun, either. And I agree, the edge of the RN won't be probably firepower.

If we talk about accuracy, I think that until the introduction of fire-control radar all the major navies were pretty much on the same level in terms of optical instrumentation; after that, the Allied navies had an undisputable edge. If we talk about dispersion, I don't see how it can be affected by "experience" and "training", since IMHO it's very dependent on the weapon, the shell and the equipment. And, to a degree, also by fire-control methods: part of the reason why the Italian battleships tended to fire salvoes with huge dispersion was that the dominating concept emphasized straddling the enemy first, going as far as aiming with the first and last turrets a bit forwards or backwards of the enemy; instead the Royal Navy emphasized having tight salvoes, that in case of a straddle would get many hits, but the number of straddles was comparatively lower. But that was mainly because of the troublesome quadruple mounts, not because the guns per se, as was the case of the Nelson's guns...

I might be wrong about this, perhaos they don't care about this at all, but if they go around with the values for the bursting charge, then the 14-inch guns would have the samue value as the later APC shells made for the 15-inch. Yes, these factors would give us ways to balance them out. I'd go especially with dispersion... as far as I know, these weapons had consistent patterns in terms of fall of shot, also because their barrels were mounted relatively far from each other (in contrast with what happened with the Dunkerque and the Richelieu's quadruple mounts).