Tungstonid

What exactely do you mean? Yamato does have the higher calibre and therefore a higher fire chance. I rather meant the differences between 127 mm, 203 mm and 410 mm for example anyway. There is no mathematical formula behind this. All you can do is to say that, in general, the fire chance increases with the calibre of the gun. Why they want such a high fire chance for the UK BBs I don't know.

Yes, the fire chance is in a way a fictional value made up by WG and it correlates with the calibre of the guns. So, in general ships with bigger calibre have a higher chance to cause fires. The tier 10 UK BB (Conqueror if I am not mistaken) does have the second biggest guns after the Yamato with 457 m. So the fire chance is pretty high. However, there are other factors that have to be taken into account when causing a fire like - the target's fire protection due to the hull - the target's captain skills - the target's equipment - whether or not the target already burnt on the part you hit - your captain skills etc. So usually the "real" fire chance is lower than what is depicted in the port.

Yeah, hidden somewhere right at the end of the paragraph. That's definitvely the way to show and make clear whom you are talking about...

And your qualifier (aka "coward") is where?

Thank you. I will come back at you on that. Still better than what for example Aotearas does. "a certain amount" just needs a definition of how much it actually is. No one of us does have a concrete number supported by statistics, just "feelings" and what they (think to) see in their battles. People like Aotearas on the other hand are just generalizing although he should know it is not true that (all) BBs just stay behind and are sniping from the border of the map.

Just to make sure, care to elaborate? I think you mean that especially BBs and CVs could be used as player-controlled battlestations? IMO not a good idea. A single player controlling a BB is just... meh. Even if he can't move. If you take several players for a BB, each of them controlling different parts (like turrets, engine, rudder etc)... What do you think will happen? CVs could be mobile landing pads for other players at best. And if they were just mobile landing pads with a bit of AAA... Then I don't need them to be player-controlled.

To get back to the topic: You have three possibilities when fighting enemies behind cover with better gun arcs. 1) You turn around and get out of their gun range so they have to switch targets or have to come out of their cover. 2) You move closer until the gun arc of the enemy is flat enough he can't shoot over his cover anymore. 3) Find cover for yourself. In most cases it really is just a matter of positioning. Btw: Ignore the "mimimi BBs don't sail forward" faction. Yes, a certain amount of BB players tend to stay further away than necessary. But at this point some players are just trolling by generalizing and throwing all BB players into the same pot.

If you read what others wrote then no, not really. WoWS is made so players can control BBs, CAs, DDs and CVs. If WT stays with their motor boats this is hardly possible. You just cannot really balance player-controlled ships ranging from torpedoe boats to BBs, let alone CVs (which would need their own player crew), and have them all participate in the same battle so that every player has fun. Or do you think it is fun to go up against a Bismarck in a little coastal patrol boat with 2 torpedoes and a .50 cal when even patrol boat vs DD is kinda broken?

Basically this. Also this whole "I can kill you with one shot no matter what vehicle you are in" is not for everyone. I can also not think of a reasonable way how WT will implement any ships larger than a DD since they tend to stay closer to realism than WoWS. So in the end all they do is attracting a slightly different target audience but of most of the players of WoWS.

WG ended the collaboration with ARP and no one knows when (if ever) they will repeat those or similar missions.

Again, no it doesn't. You can give your best and be a good player despite not constantly (or at all) looking at your stats. It might be true for a considerable amount of people, but it is still not necessarily inclusive. I'd say that there are a lot of inactive account while most of the accounts with hidden stats are active players. At least I doubt that someone who plays once or twice a week (or not at all) does care whether his stats are hidden or not.

Neither did I imply that what you called "goals" needs to be the improvement of stats for the sake of improving them. Goals are a subjective thing anyway. I, personally, have the goals to finish campaigns/mission (as long as they are reasonable, I am looking at you, CotE >.> ) or reach ships I want to own. Of course, this in a way includes going for good results. Or rather good results make it easier.

Then please insert an appropriate quote. I doubt anyone can see who you are refering to then.

Did you even read properly what I wrote? That I insulted no one nor did I accuse anyone of ruining my games but I asked EdiJo why he things that you can't play for fun, not care about stats and be a good player at the same time? I didn't even refer to you in my post. Jesus... (and I don't even believe in this guy) I didn't speak about competitive modes in random battles either. Do you know what "being competitive" means besides (successfully) participating in clan battles? Being able to keep up with or even surpass enemies/rivals. So it is very well possible to be competitive if you only play random battles.

Oh really? You seem to imply that there is either "playing for fun" and "not interested in results/stats(?)" OR achieving goals, better play and being competitive. How so? Why do you think these things are mutual exclusive? I certainly do the first and I am not really interested in how my stats develop. Yet I certainly achieve goals (whatever you mean by that) and I am a good player I guess. If your "being competitive" includes random games, then you can add this, too. I don't really care about Team Battles or Ranked Battles at this point. So again, how do you come to the conclusion that these things exclude each other?

I thought about that with my division mate and we found two possibilities (that don't exclude each other though). One possibility would be to have a DD near the spawn to smoke the CV ASAP so the rest of the fleet can catch up and help defeating the cruisers. The second possibility is to send two BBs or a CV and a BB who can take care of the CAs ASAP. This is what we did in a match today and we managed to save the Lexington with like 800 HP (luckily the Lexington managed to extinguish the fire in the last seconds). Unfortunately we still didn't get 5 stars because we failed the "Have at least 3 players alive" part. To the spawn process itself: Does anyone know or have a reasonable suspicion how the spawn point is determined? Does it depend on where the last enemy wave spawns, i.e. if the last enemy wave spawns in the North East, the CV will spawn South and vice versa. Or does it depend on where most of the team actually is, i.e. if most of the team (aka players) is near the North East the CV will spawn South? We believe the first case to be more likely.

IIRC (can't look it up right now) I pack Main Armament Mod. 1, Secondary Battery Mod. 2, Secondary Battery Mod. 3, Damage Control System Mod. 1, Steering Gear Mod. 2 and Target Acquisition System Mod. 1.

Which is welcome but honestly, I hadn't complained without it. But it seems like OP is not satisfied with that.

Regarding your poll: Yes, WG should stick to advertized times for campaigns and mission. Just like they did for this one. You would have lost 2 hours anyway. Maybe not on the last day but on another one. Would you complain then, too? Yes, WG's customer support should provide support for players. Just like they usually do unless the request is totally bollocks and is not justified. So what do you suppose WG should do to solve the "problem" (note the quotation marks). Give every participant the collectibles and prizes they are still missing? Not gonna happen. Ask players to message the support if they feel treated unfairly about the campaign? Probably not a good idea because A) it is not justified and B) every tomatoe and his dog will message the support just so they get something for free so it would take ages.

I beg to differ. A secondary build is very well viable but only if it suits your play style. Especially the ability to penetrate all other ships frontally can help against other BBs. I have put my build in the spoiler below. It is supposed to be a secondary build Yamato with enhanced fire protection just to annoy cruisers and I found it to be very useful. Adrenaline Rush just because I never plan to end the battle at full HP. However, having reached the 19th skill point I don't really know what to take for the remaining three points. As I see it I have the options of Vigilance (although I already use the Target Acquisition Module because I don't want a stealth build), Basic Firing Training (but I don't know if the effect is significant enough compared to the other options), Superintendent (which really affects only one of the consumables and not every time at that) or a combination of High Alert/Jack of all Trades and Preventive Maintenance. Any compelling ideas, anyone?

If you have a bow on Iowa at 8 km in front of you and a broadside cruiser at 10 km, the broadside cruiser can indeed be a more valid target since A) you can take out guns easier which means less damage dealt against you and your team besides other advantages like points and one ship less that could cap etc. B) you can't deal much damage to the Iowa anyway so the cruiser will have more time to deal damage which is when they are dangerous C) the Iowa can't do much damage if you are in a bow on BB yourself, hence he is a minor annoyance at the moment. Btw: what do you mean by "aerial attacks"?

Because he chose to do so?

The bot teams always consist of the same ships. They do not depend on the loadout the players/MM chooses. But winning without a CV is still possible.

If you are more the "get close and personal" kind of BB player (which is way more appreciated than the borderline camper although that's not hard to achieve) you have to rely on support by other BBs, CAs and DDs. You can hardly fight multiple targets, let alone multiple targets that focus their fire on you. An important player skill is to manage your damage control and repair party. One fire is hardly worth the use of the DCP. Wait for at least two before using your Repair Party. you can "counter" the HP loss by one fire by using the Repair Party. Yes, you will have a bit less HP afterwards but you still have your DCP ready if you get more fires or floodings due to torpedoe hits. The next thing is map wareness. If you have no support, turn around. Try to kite the enemy insead of rushing right into their middle and get slaughered. You won't be able to play your most favourable role every time but for victory it is more important to adapt to the strategy (or lack thereof) of the rest of the team. Use cover from islands to reduce angles and number of incoming fire, be aware of possible directions of incoming torpedoes etc.

You don't get chat banned for a one or two "Move idiots" in a battle. Else I and probably some other people would have gotten chat bans on one or the other occasion, too. You want to hear my chat ban count? Zero. So you either have more to say in a battle or you do it on a regular basis and piss off more and more people. Or every player you meet has something personal against you. Or someone hacked the server so every player is forced to spend a report on you just for being in the same battle.