Historynerd

Alright. So, what if those players want to play by sinking all the friendly ship? I suppose it would be alright. What if they want to play by staying as close as possible to a random guy just to annoy him? Again, no problem, right? Now, talking seriously, I acknowledge that, unless one is part of a clan or a division, he is free to play as he wish. However, given that this game is not single player, I think that a certain level of teamplay can be expected, and when one does not feel that it has been reached, perhaps he can point it out calmly and politely (because I absolutely agree that insults are a no-go). I mean, sure, nothing forces me, whenever I am in a cruiser, to stick together to a battleship to provide some cover, I am free to do it or to sail elsewhere; however, if I choose the first option, it might yield better results than doing my own thing. One should not annihilate himself and always follow the pack, or stuff, but should also balance out his style with the whole team situation, and make a decision taking in consideration both. Does this sound wishful thinking? Well, perhaps it is, but it's how it should be, IMHO. As for the fact that we can't know who is playing... well, perhaps it's naive, but I think that people like the ones mentioned might want to point it out before. There are quite a few players who say when they are having their first match in a ship, for example.

Alright, then.

"Blaming others"...? That would work, were I someone who is unable to look at himself and evaluate his own performance in a tolerably objective way. However, I do not feel I am like that. I freely and openly admit I am but an average player, who is likely to make mistakes, and who doesn't always do the same thing. If I make a mistake (ram an ally by my mistake, get stuck on an island, etc. etc.), I don't blame anyone but myself, and if I cause someone harm I apologize. Does that mean that every time our joint efforts to get victory end up in failure, I must consider it to be my failure? That I failed and all the other players are innocent? No; I consider that I am not a very good player, that I probably could have played it better, that I still have room to improve myself and my skills. And if my teammates, from what I can recall, also did their best overall, I have no inclination to blame them, or insult them or anything. If my teammates (and please note the if) have behaved in a way that in a clear and evident way gave a major contribution to the defeat, however, I feel entitled to call them out. I feel entitled to point out that a different tactic might have yielded better results, and to encourage them to consider this in the next battles. I concede you might have a point in saying that one should only feel that he has done the best he could, and leave it to that; however, as this game is based also on competitiveness, most people will probably feel at least something negative correlated to a defeat. And if he feels that his team adopted the wrong approach, and this was the most important cause in said defeat, I think it would be understandable that he engaged in such behaviour, useless as it may be. So, sorry, but you should diversify your statement, because it seems to imply that most of the time I react to defeat by blaming others, while I can say in the strongest possible terms that this is absolutely not true. And sorry if it seems that all of this is too self-centered, but as you took my post as an example, I feel justified in pointing out why I think your example is not exactly fitting with my experience and my actions. "Most of the time"... Very well. Prove that I have insulted (and I mean personal, offending insults that don't fall in the cases above mentioned) anyone, anytime.

I have not taken it personal. However, allow me to object to your reasoning that I am not expecting my team not to do such a thing because this is what I want; I am expecting them to do otherwise because, based on my experience, which seems corroborated by what others have said about their own experiences, such a move results most of the time in failure and defeat. I try to point it out at the beginning of the match, when it's clear that something like this is going to happen; I say that it will probably (not everytime, I admit) end up in our defeat. So, when I am completely ignored on this matter (not even acknowledged with an invite to shut up or something), when I try to help the team by doing my best to halt or delay their advance towards our base, hoping that in the meantime they'll have reached the enemy base (unfortunately this doesn't happen every time, because I have seen overwhelmingly superior flanks not being able to push aggressively enough the stragglers), when I am killed, alone and unsupported, and find out that all of this was in vain... ...well, I can't help it, but I do feel frustrated. As I said, I do my best to try and keep it under control, as not to start hurling personal insults at my team; however, I feel entitled to point out (perhaps with too much sarcasm, I admit) that their decision has ended up in precisely as I foretold. So, considering that I am not acknowledged, I am not silenced with some logical reasoning to which I could perhaps submit, that I have an inclination to think that players that behave this way are likely to refuse to correct their gameplay, even when it hurts their teammates as well as them (I am not saying that everybody should be a champion, I am saying that somebody refuses to stop playing in a rather absurd manner, even when it's blatantly useless and hurtful)... ...who is exactly the one more concentrated on his own egocentricity, pray tell?

I can only hope you're right, and that I'm not trying to deceive everyone and myself...

Criticism I can give... as for toxicity, I don't know. It's hard to remain cool, when somebody starts saying that it's actually my fault, because if my team is doing a lemming train I am actually supposed to join it, instead of using my brain and trying to at least slow down the enemy on the opposite side, so learn to play noob... Only this I can say: while I have questioned these guys' intelligence, per the answers they were telling me which were completely absurd in my perspective, I've never wished them a painful death, a horrible sickness or something like that. I have been harsh on them for what they were saying, but I didn't attack them personally at random.

As for mysef, I have a tendency, whenever it seems my team has done something like going in a lemming train on one side leaving the other open (and I died trying to close it), to say things like, "Please die quickly so I can try again with a better team", or something like that. It's harsh, I admit; in my defence, I can say I never crossed a line and did what is rumoured somebody do, like telling the locations of their ally on the general chat. And I can also say that it's a little frustrating to point out that perhaps we shouldn't all go in one direction, only to be meet with silence; I'm not even worthy of being said to sod off or something, apparently.

Seriously, sometimes I am completely lost...

So do battleships... are torpedoes ineffective against them?

I found this: Is he the guy?

I might be wrong, but I think that both modes are valid... I'm not 100% sure, though...

Wouldn't it be like having AI controlled infantry and anti-tank guns in WoT...?

Sorry, I should have specified that I was talking about the Regina Elena's guns.

Yes, but weren't they slow to reload? On NavWeaps it says that rate of fire was 1 rpm...

I think they were planned for the Comandanti, the Etna and the Cavour; I don't know anything about the development of said mounts. Perhaps there could be something in the Ansaldo or OTO archives, but good luck to anyone hoping to get in there... In any case, I think that the DP mount was not planned for the Aquila, or am I wrong? All the material I got supports this, but perhaps I'm missing a piece of the puzzle...

If you say "anti-destroyer", one might assume that you mean they are supposed to counter them. It was quite ambiguous.

First of all, remember that we have to use English here; Italian will be allowed only when the dedicated sub-section of the forum will be opened. Second, the information you provide is good, but Deamon already provided most of it, so it's kind of redundant. Third, I'm not sure, but I think that the 135 mm guns were not supposed to be in an AA mount on these, only on the Comandanti Medaglie d'Oro class destroyers; I might be wrong, though.

Monitors, anti-destroyers? You pit two huge guns, possibly not that accurate, without as much range as battleships, slow to reload, on a ship that has mediocre speed and bad maneuverability (and why good camo? these things were tall), against the fastest and nimblest ship that you can find in the game? Your logic eludes me. Anyway, monitors didn't have much luck with bigger, sea-going vessels. Look up the battle of Imbros, and perhaps you'll see why there are quite a few of us who are skeptical...

Dont' forget though that the 12'' guns of the Colossus-class (similar to the ones fitted on the St. Vincent and Neptune-classes) were considered failures, having high muzzle velocity but suffering from dispersion and accuracy problems, high wear and therefore short service life. For this reason the 13.5'' and 15'' guns, firing a heavier shell at a lower muzzle velocity, were selected for the next generation of super-dreadnoughts.

Well, the Canopus was a relatively old ship (she was commissioned in 1899, so she wasn't one of the latest pre-dreadnoughts), that was manned largely by reservist and whose position in the priority of refits and repairs was undoubtedly low... The best pre-dreadnoughts were kept in the home waters, or at most in the Mediterranean. It was the older and less worthy pre-dreadnoughts that were spared for such unglamorous duty.

I'm curious to see how they made her armament work... Oh, well. Shoulda figured they would have put in some way or another.

About the various types of ammo, given that they are currently toying with the stats and other stuff (critical chance, fire chance,...), a tutorial would be obsolete by the time of the next patch, probably.

The radar is not going to be a problem, I think...

I just found out an interesting made-for-TV movie, "The sinking of the Laconia". It's about a U-Boot that torpedoes a ship, carrying soldiers, civilians and Italian POWs, and whose commander does his best to rescue as many survivors as he can, until an Allied air attack forces him to get away. This causes Admiral Dönitz to issue an orderd forbidding such attempts in the future (the "Laconia" order). Not bad, overall. (Plus, we get a few scenes where we see an Italian submarine...)

Which one?