Takeda92

So I think I found a bug. When mounting the 3rd hull on Myougi, in artillery stats if you point at the guns it says you have 37 seconds 180 degrees turn time, while the gun module in the modules tab still says 60 seconds!

But if you read the comparison, Murmansk can do those 2 things better, it has better guns AND better torpedoes!

I can understand having worse firepower, worse maneuverability. or worse AA.. but worse torpedoes? shouldn't Japanese ships have the best torpedoes in their tier? I could swear that how WG advertised the Japanese ships in the game. Ofc Historically Furutaka had double the launchers she has in the game with this version of Furutaka, but I guess Furutaka can't have her historical launchers beacuse balance, but let's keep her crappy RoF and turret traverse because historical accuracy right?

So Poi is using Shimakaze as a torpedo because she is fast?

Myougi turret turning times are wrong, you are using a the stock ones. Japanese BBs change guns when they changes hulls and their guns stats will change also.

My point is, Furutaka vs Murmansk. The fact Murmansk is a premium just made it worse. So everyone know how exactly bad Furutaka is balanced in tier 5 compared to the best cruiser at tier 5

Something about Zaou being a more respectable mountain in that region..

Actually, in iChase video of AP vs HE, he citadel hit an Aoba with his 152mm on Cleveland, same guns on Omaha/Murmansk and Aoba has the same armor as Furutaka. So that AP penetration on Furutaka is useless except maybe against low tier BBs, in which Omaha/Murmansk can fix by having tremendous more HE damage and fire for Furutaka's poor AP DPM.

Actually it's better than Omaha!

Actually murmansk is better than furutaka in each aspect except survivability. Including ofc guns, torps and AA

@Ririply I'm talking about the ease of play and "noob friendly" capability of these nations. The potential they can do is the same and depends more on the player skill rather than nation.

Just like in WoT, USA and Soviet are the best nations, expect the same here. Russian and American players are the best payers so yeah!! Balance is a lie

Well to start you can not make Grem a better DD than Mutsuki which is 1 toer higher. Also 12seconds reaction time for IJN torps need to go or give them better guns at tier 9-10.

Zaō is named after mount. Zaō, which is in Japan. So if it is good enough for the Japanese who we are to complain The only difference between Zaō and DM is DM is easy mode while Zaō needs some skill to be played effectively!

You would get BBs that one shot cruisers 3 tiets above.. so no!

Why not x2 like in WoT?

Does it even fly? XD

that flying saucer is a nice target to shoot at.

I actually wanted to add a few points to my old thread but it was in CBT section and was locked, so I apologize for opening a new thread. It was not my intention. So adding to the points I made in that thread, here are few more suggestions: Fighter balance: (IJN vs USN) I suggested the removal of specialized setups. However even in balanced setups there will be attack oriented, balanced, defense oriented setups. note that this most likely won't work on low tier carriers due to low number of squadrons on both nations. -A balanced setup will have 2 fighters for both nations. Fighter setup 3 fighters and attack setup 1 fighter. -Fighters of both nations are slightly closer balanced than that in the current state, This means a buff to IJN fighters (since my original proposal meant a nerf for IJN attack power due to reduction of TBs). -1 on 1, USN fighter one due to having 2 more planes. The plane lose on the winning squad is 2-4 planes depending on engagement conditions. -2 IJN FT win versus 1 USN FT due to having more planes. Loses on the winning squadrons is 4-6/8. -3 IJN FT vs 2 USN FT, this heavily depends on engagement conditions, fighter upgrades and plane type and stats on each tier. But generally it is more favored toward USN in high tiers, IJN in mid-tiers (don't freak out ok ^^ ) -This makes a fighter deck IJN carrier can barely win against a balanced deck USN carrier (and might still lose in some conditions), and a balanced deck IJN carrier barely win against a strike deck USN carrier. Fighter USN carrier remains the supreme ruler of skies. -On mid tiers, the fighter deck is simply 2 fighters and the other deck is 1 fighter, because low number of squadrons. Bombers balance: - IJN tight spread returns - Dive bombers improve for both nations, so picking a DB over FT isn't that much of a loss. - Torp and bomb damage scale from tier 4-10 Carriers decks: (F=fighter deck, B=balanced deck, S=Strike deck) (note: please read explanation after the tier 10 before overreacting in comments.. thanks ) tier 4: no change from what is now IJN: 1 FT 2 TB USN: F: 1 FT 1 TB tier 5: IJN: F: 2 FT 1 TB 2 DB S: 1 FT 2 TB 2 DB USN: F: 2 FT 0 TB 2 DB S: 1 FT 1 TB 2 DB tier 6: IJN: F: 3 FT 2 TB 1 DB B: 2 FT 2 TB 2 DB S: 1 FT 2 TB 3 DB USN: F: 2 FT 1 TB 1 DB S: 1 FT 1 TB 2 DB tier 7: IJN: F: 3 FT 2 TB 1 DB B: 2 FT 2 TB 2 DB S: 1 FT 2 TB 3 DB USN: F: 2 FT 1 TB 1 DB S: 1 FT 2 TB 1 DB tier 8: IJN: F: 3 FT 2 TB 2 DB B: 2 FT 2 TB 3 DB S: 1 FT 3 TB 3 DB USN: F: 3 FT 1 TB 1 DB B: 2 FT 1 TB 2 DB S: 1 FT 2 TB 2 DB tier 9: IJN: F: 3 FT 2 TB 2 DB B: 2 FT 3 TB 2 DB S: 1 FT 3 TB 3 DB USN: F: 3 FT 1 TB 1 DB B: 2 FT 1 TB 2 DB S: 1 FT 2 TB 2 DB tier 10: IJN: F: 3 FT 2 TB 3 DB B: 2 FT 3 TB 3 DB S: 1 FT 3 TB 4 DB USN: F: 3 FT 1 TB 2 DB B: 2 FT 2 TB 2 DB S: 1 FT 2 TB 3 DB explanation: - I don't believe tier 4 can be remade, that low of a tier there shouldn't be many planes and it is mainly about learning how to use planes rather than be a competitive damage dealer. - Tier 5 both start with 2 decks, USN have plane number advantage but all the planes are still biplanes, so the stat changes aren't very big. They upgrade their TB but have to use a strike setup (sorry I believe 24 planes is too much with 1/1/2 setup for USN) - In tier 6, USN due to low squad number still only have 2 decks while IJN starts with the 3 decks.. however the planes don't improve much compared to USN planes, were 2 fighters are even enough to stand against the 3 Japanese fighters, provided they didn't engage in favorable conditions (I will explain what favorable conditions is later). - In tier 7, the USN and IJN firepower difference is decreased to be barely similar, in fighter vs fighter deck, IJN wins now in favorable conditions (the only tier where this happens so far). However, the USN TB improves so much over the IJN TB that it becomes faster and deals more damage (tier 8 material), This can be further improved if USN go to strike deck where they start to get 2 TB for the first time, exceeding the potential of IJN strike deck that still uses 2 TB. However IJN get the option to upgrade their DB to do more damage that is tier 8-9 material (I'll talk about damage later) - Tier 8 the fighter power is back to what is was, however IJN can field 3 TBs that are equal to the 2 USN TBs. Tier 9 and 10 are not very much different from what WG is did in 0.4... The traits continue from tier 8 but with improved stats and +1 squad on tier 10 Please don't consider this as finished. I'm still planning on refining this and I know some tiers will have trouble with this but this is the general idea. I will try to come up with setups for all tiers of both nations soon as well as fix and add more stuff. Also, realize that my goal is not to create a roflstomping carriers that will "insta-delete" any ship, but to balance out the overpoweredness (is that a word?) of carriers in some cases but make them more fun and engaging to play (to the extent of my opinion). Feel free to add your points and your remarks. This is just a suggestion I am trying to come up with because I mainly gave up on WG doing it right anymore. This will make me hang on to hope a little bit more. As you can see there are still stuff I haven't worked out entirely because I don't have excess to the game but should be fixed within the next 24 hours, so this will be edited. Coming soon: -add the points of my previous thread. -adding some more points and fixes. -suggest some plane stats whenever I can. Any help and feedback from USN CV captains is welcomed

Cruisers have torpedoes too you know!

right in front of you you say? BS If you can't evade a torp with 9-12 seconds window then you are playing wrong! Now learn the game and stop nerfing everything or just quit!

Guys, you need to stop talking about my suggestion like it is going to be real. It won't. devs don't read EU forums and our mods are not interested in this sort of stuff to send it to devs

Well, don't forget my fighters ability to engage a ship AA and distracting it from attacking the TBs. I haven't added that yet from the old thread, but I am trying to think of ways to make every plane type useful. If fighters can distract the ship AA this means you have to send all your planes to attacking a target, and after engaging the ship you have a small window to send in your bombers before the fighters cease their engagement (or die if you are attacking an Iowa with your tier 6 planes)

Well if AA was too much then either buff planes survivability or nerf that AA.. soft stats! Again you're not looking at the big picture. There are cruisers and battleships and carriers that won't stand an attack from 2 TBs of tier 6.. especially not from a fighter deck. You just can't look at some ships that have strong AA and say you can't attack those!

Yes. We had enough of WG's stupid nerfs already. Instead of making both line sh*t it's better to make them both more fun to play. It's this stupid idea of black and white national peculiarity balancing that went too far that broke the IJN DDs, just like all the other amazing ideas they have come up with. Buffing Kegerou and Shimakaze turrets to 12s turning time but keeping the RoF as it is seems like a nice start. This way USN DDs can keep their gun superiority with DPM. Mutsuki needs a complete rework and Grem possibly a tier 6 or 7 ship.