Pawndemonium

And now apply logic to come to the conclusion why rust makes sense.

Could need some fog banks though, maybe some currents, and... ahr... lava, nah fog banks should do.

Best part being if you play the Port music with the Module music simultaneously it sounds even more awesome. If you extract the music, it's WOWS_SC_79 and WOWS_SC_89, they complement each other perfectly. .x

It just changes the Omaha into a Murmansk with worse modules/performance.

lmao you were the guy who posted rl ranges as proof, i wouldn't have posted once if you didn't, I never said the ballistics were out of wack. Now go waste your own time with random gifs.

ffs... you don't seem to get my point at all... Those 18km ingame, are more like 10km in rl... the angle according to your absolutely useless real life gun range should be around 6° then, which it isn't even close. Neither is it at 16.5° gun elevation, now stop posting your useless crap already, start the bloody game and have a look on your own.

How does this matter if you bring in real life statistics? Just have a look ingame, it looks as if the shell hits the deck at angles over 50°, more so when you add a module which didn't even exist in real life at all to extend its range (and it means sh*t if it's an effective range for ingame purposes). Just check the ship sizes, and the speeds traveled, they're totally out of wack.

For the purpose of determining (dafuq, that word) the max range, yes.

If at all you pretty much just backed up his statement, ranges in WoWs are heavily inflated. So yeah... impact angle of over 50° confirmed .p

Hm, yeah HE might be a tad bit too powerful now, but that patch sadly made my fps drop from 40 to like 10-15, mostly on Ice Islands in the center, I don't think that's solely because of those villages, the game doesn't run too well in general if the RAM had been flushed earlier from other stuff. Also... Bismarck got some new stuff in her folder, so it can be expected very soon I guess .p

I'm not sure if those two are suitable tier 5 premium ships. As they're premium they should suffer the same fate as any other ship of this status and sort of have a tier penalty, by being moved up to tier 6. The Murmansk is pretty much a fully upgraded Omaha (this got more apparent with 0.3.1 as a new hull option got introduced), with less drawbacks, which just can't be right, I'd even go as far and say that this premium ship outperforms the American Tier 5 Cruiser even when fully upgraded (the range alone is a big point, but it doesn't even stop there, it has higher manoeuvrability aswell, let alone superior torps). And yeah, the Gremyashchy... I think I don't even have to mention this one, just totally out of place at tier 5, more so when it's a premium ship. So... not sure, am I missing something? I have to add, I don't own any of these, it's pretty much just comparing statistics. Any ideas why Tier 5 is reasonable here (apart from russian bias .p)?

Lol I do get your point that it's normally bold to post something like that without having those ships in the port. However in that case we are talking about base parameters (the ship in question is still an Omaha). In the case of your analogy I actually test drive a car, and get notified that there is a premium version which handles better for more cash afterwards... .p I have to add something to those stats aswell. While you have the option to have more guns and more torps (however, less damage, and range when it comes to the latter), the recent update added another hull which pretty much attempts to convert the Omaha into a Murmansk. The gun accuracy is actually in favour of the Murmansk, the dispersion is just higher because of the range difference. Before the patch the Murmansk was a sidegrade, compared to the second hull of the Omaha (as the posted comparison pointed out, the AA on that hull is abyssmal though), apparently we can agree on that (which is imo a problem already, as it still receives more credits/xp, it's a premium ship), however the recent patch added a hull to the Omaha which just added insult to injury (it removes 2 guns, 2 launchers, for more AA, resulting in a Murmansk setup with less versatility). Long story short, yes it's reasonable to have both ships in your harbor for different applications (as long as you just stick to the second hull), but I still think it's wrong when a tech ship doesn't perform better under general circumstances. That's like having an Atlanta with 14km gunrange... it wouldn't be broken, just more effective. .p When it comes to the Gremy, it's actually unreasonable to bring it up without owning it, I totally agree on that, it's just a good strategy to release a ship with less extreme parameters like the USN DDs and IJN DDs have at lower tiers (although I'm not sure if it's a grand idea to release a jack of all trades as a premium ship, but apparently that's just me).

Whut? How was my post offensive? .p Thing is, and the Murmansk is probably a better example for this, as you can easily compare it to the Omaha, what stats make the difference? I'd totally look forward to examples why I'm wrong, and why I actually have to own the ship. But as of now I just see the same shipclass, where the premium version gets better modules. Maybe I just misunderstand the concept of Premiums, and I'm totally fine with being wrong, but compared to other nations, which have quite the niche ships, the Murmansk just looks like an upgrade compared to the Omaha (which I have to admit hardly has any impact on gameplay in most cases, because of the tier, but it still is a difference compared to other nations) I think the best example will be made when the Bismarck gets released as a premium and also is available in the tech tree. Although I'm pretty sure the performance of the premium version is supposed to be lower (as it's about training a commander and making credits). So if my earlier post read offensive, it wasn't supposed to, I just thought it was inappropriate to tell me I have to own a ship, which apparently can easily be discussed with stats alone. Again, if it's not the case, please tell me why... is the citadel different, is i the armour/module layout... I don't know...

I'm not sure why you completely ignore my main issue and instead attempt to mock my lack of experience with said ships, even though you apparently admit that I might have a point. It's not my fault that I'm asked to mindlessly shell out cash to test some aspects of a beta test. Ship performance can easily be determined by looking at certain stats (more so when both are the same ship class, I wouldn't dare saying the Montana outperforms the Yamato, as there are factors which require ingame experience). And in the case of the Murmansk it has to be compared to a fully upgraded ship in its own tier (and the same class!!!, making it reasonable enough to bring up), which as a Premium ship is just a huge balancing issue, more so when it outperforms it. The Murmanks has 14.8km range compared to 12.7km, along with more agility, and superior torpedoes (which are more apparent when trying to fill the AA niche). Some might argue that in most cases these are minor differences, but apart from those adding up, and giving the Murmansk more flexibility in many situations, the fact that you admit that they are pretty equal (with random variance on your behalf), while the Murmanks also has a better credit/XP income makes me wonder why you even bring up the point that I should first sail these ships. So please tell me of factors which actually require me to acquire these ships, before having a valid opinion in your eyes. I'm intrigued now!

Merge 79 with 98... ;]

And even less so, when the pattern is less than ideal, which is more likely to assume. While I can think of more reasons to steer into a spread, I can't neglect the cases where I'd prefer to turn away, dependant on islands, allies or the opponents effective gun ranges. Seriously, saying it's wrong with only one solution is just ignorant. .p

RNG in WoWs is dependant on the class, while it's higher than in WoT for BBs (although 50% are just ridiculous to assume, more like 35%), it's lower for Cruisers and Destroyers. WoWs also offers more options for teamplay. A Division has a way higher impact on the outcome than in WoT. Long story short, this thread sucks.

And unreasonable.

Gotta buy a new car, it's unrealiable.

Fun sidenote, that's not on the 0.3.1 server. Regards Batman.

Hm any chance someone with access can reveal if the Atlanta gets a better turning radius? Just saw the stream yesterday and noticed his division mate on the mini map... looked promising, but numbers ftw... .p

Starting at 9:25 you were revealed to your opponents because of not disabling your AA, making the smoke screen redundant, as they just ignored you completely (although the fighters would have spotted you anyway shortly after, but the AA fire in the smoke screen totally negated it).

I'm very curious how the HE buff turns out to be. Not sure if DDs can handle that sort of change. The armour changes probably shift the Cleveland to proper proportions aswell... and the Atlanta hopefuly gets a nice agility boost with the announced changes .p

A manual spread drop would be superior to an auto drop, as the distance would be shortened significantly (resulting in more hits). While it's quite the example to have more than one squadron hunt down a sole DD or CL/CA, it's not that rare to begin with, more so for defensive purposes. Manual spreads can be easily dodged with a nimble ship, even anvil strikes have a solution, dependant on how agile the victim is, if you'd add a manual spread, this would f*ck up the chances to overcome this. A single torp hit on those targets actually matters (let alone 2 or more), crippling those to have an option to harass lemming trains, which should be softened up by your own team to begin with, is just a terrible trade-off. CVs are a powerful support unit, and for gameplay purposes they are on the right spot imo.

The only thing it would achieve is to increase the ability to hit smaller, agile targets, which just sucks.