Historynerd

I agree with those who say that there is more to this than a supposed BB all-powerfulness. My (limited) experience is that BBs are all-powerful only if the opponents oblige them. Only if the cruisers are gracious and present their broadside to be citadelled. I recently moved to the New Mexico, and while I thoroughly appreciate it, I have seen that in the Tiers it fights things are a bit different than in the lower ones. There are much more cruisers that are savy, that don't touch the Q-E buttons once every thirty seconds or so, but who turn like crazy, point their bows or their stern at you and dare you to fire your salvo, with the perspective of seeing him unmasking all of his guns after you've shot and pelting you with HE, only to turn again when your reload is up. And I am fine with it. It's a challenge for me, it's not just "find the cruiser showing his broadside, point, click", it's something that forces me to step up my game, to be more aware of my surroundings and collaborate more with my team. I have had a couple of rough handlings, when cruisers who knew their business burned me to death, while I was still doing some damage, but I was utterly unable to get citadels or sink one of them. I accept that, and I like to see enemies who know what they're doing, and that are likely to be better than me; I know that I am an average player, but I hope I can improve my level somewhat. This is just my impression, and my opinion. A competent cruiser skipper will not hide for fear of battleships, but will keep carrying his team.

I am against removing both permanent module destruction and detonation from the game. If the former happens so much lately, however, then a fix is needed; and in any case, I'd like for it to happen sparsely. However, in principle I feel that this mechanics add depth to the game; it makes things less straightforward, which I think is something to be welcomed. Sure, I perfectly understand that it's not a happy moment when your ship gets detonated, but if it happens just a few times then why not? Last time it happened to my New York from a torpedo, I admit I was a tiny bit irritated, since it was midway through the match and I could have gotten better results and better damage; but not in any way enough to spoil my fun and ruin my day. It changed things up, the match got interesting for my teammates, and it was all good. These are just my two cents, though, which are mainly made up of personal feelings and impressions.

Careful; you can only write in English here, you cannot use Italian.

So, I wonder, has anyone around here been watching the anime series, or, even better (in my humble opinion), is following the manga release, which is still in progress (there's still much water to go through)? I've first met the manga, then watched the anime series (Ars Nova), which was somewhat okay, but they twerked a little too many things. Still reading the manga, though; it's really good (says a guy who has very limited knowledge of manga, but whatever, I just like it). Any fans?

In my opinion, yes. The Kongo doesn't suit my style very well (I'm more a BB skipped that has to stay and slug it out, while the Kongou is more about mobility and sniping), but it's really nice. Can't say about what comes next; I played the Fuso only in CBT and I loved it, and I hope it's still the beast I remember.But that's it.

I understood that, and I was indeed referencing what happens when I shoot at cruisers. And I think that some 20-30% of the shots I land are normal penetrations, and do more than the canonical 1K. But this is just my impression.

That is not what I experience; although not the majority of what I shoot, I do get with my BBs some hits that are not citadels, yet do more than 1K damage. But I might be partial over this issue, as I am mostly a BB skipper...

Another round. And a step closer to take over this thread, he he...

Ye thread of old, arise! I give thee new life; not done your purpose is until the end my will meets. Has anyone watched the Cadenza movie? I'll discuss some generic aspects of it under spoilers, so those who didn't won't get mad at me.

That is a bit subjective in my opinion. I personally believe that detonation can be enjoyable, even if you're on the receiving end. Once I was sailing in my New York, and halfway during the match, while I was busy exchanging broadsides against an enemy BB, a DD managed to sneak up and loose its fishes at me; I turned, and I was already relieved that only one would hit me, when... ...boom. The single torpedo had detonated me. I was quite surprised; maybe just a bit irritated at seeing that my match ended prematurely, but overall I thought "Why not?". It did change up the match a bit; losing suddenly a BB with a good three quarters of health can make sure that the match isn't sliding boringly into a win. Besides, any anger issues I might have had were quashed by the fun I had when someone rethorically asked if I had let myself being citadelled and detonated by the enemy BB. It was a cruel pleasure to point out that it had been a DD that had done the deed, and then look at his confusion. This is what I feel, in any case; I wouldn't want to throw detonations out of the window. And neither, should I add, the mechanic for permanent turret destruction. Only, I would make it relatively difficult, so it would be more unique than rare to get to a point when all of your turrets are destroyed.

Call me egocentric, but I do hope that this won't mean that we'll end up seeing the MN and the RM (even if in premium form) in 2018... If the RN starts slipping, the subsequent nations might slip as well further far away.

Can I answer this after the Italian BBs get implemented?

Um... when I saw the thread, the title made me think that something had been leaked about the stats of the RN cruisers, since that is going to be the first RN line we'll see, it seems...

I was shooting other cruisers... Tiers 4-5. And I was trying to get citadels alright, I was just surprised I got lots of them; at least, for me are lots. Thanks. I am grinding the Omaha, 'cause I'm a slow player. I am barely above the 350 matches mark.

I wonder if something's alright... Ok, we lost, despite my efforts, nothing big. But is it alright for an Omaha to get thirteen citadels? Or was it just me with my A-game going? Seriously, as long as the match went on, I kept asking myself why I was getting all these citadels... I never had more than half a dozen, more or less, in a match. Oh, and I beat my previous record, by scoring some 130K damage. Nothing special, but maybe I'm improving a bit.

Didn't know this... thanks! (I knew the accident aboard the Montecuccoli, and I had heard about the nickname about the old cruisers, but the others, no).

Of course; it was pretty transparent.

I outrank you, therefore I will take over command of your threads about the Marine Nationale and mess them up horribly!

For the Trafalgar example, there are some things that we must consider. First, the British fleet's opponent was a combined Franco-Spanish fleet, and this was not a strong point, as it made coordination more difficult. Then, the British ships had better trained crews, therefore the Franco-Spanish crews would not be able to do crippling damage to the approaching British sails-of-the-line (especially since their ships were rolling rather heavily). All in all, it was a calculated gambit, with Nelson knowing that the enemy's level would compensate for the tactical disadvantage; and it would enable the battle to descend into single duels, in which the superior quality of the British crews would ensure victory and lots of prizes taken. - Another example for a fleet that allowed itself to have its T crossed would be at Lissa, in 1866. This descended both from Admiral Tegetthoff's complete faith in his ship and his men, and his desire (yet again) to get into dueling with the numerically superior, but less prepared and ill led Italian ships. And yet again, the unpreparedness (and lack of coordination) of the other side meant that the firepower advantage was insufficient to bring devastating damage.

I would be cautious before stating outright that even by the 19th century the "line astern" formation was an anachronism. Although it is undisputable that battleship vs battleship encounters were rare, the fact remains that capital ships remained optimized for broadside firing till the end of the gun era, I believe. As long as the big gun ship remained alive, it was implicit that in a naval battle such a ship had to cause as much damage as possible to the enemy, while taking the least amount of damage compatible with it; and to do that, it had to fire with all of its high caliber turrets, which required the ship to be, if not perpendicular to the enemy's position, sufficiently angled towards him. In an engagement with more than one big gun ship, the line astern formation allowed for such conditions, umasking all the big guns available, and therefore allowing the force to express all of its firepower. It did have disadvantages, of course; the line astern does not allow for easy and quick movements to adapt to a changed tactical situation (the best that can be done in that case, I think, is what was done by the Hochseeflotte at Jutland). However, it does allow for relatively easy control by the fleet commander (since it's relatively easier to figure the companion ship's position, reducing the chance for identification mistakes), which might not be the case with some alternative formations that could have been adopted. In my opinion, there is more to this formation than just tradition and conservatism.