ainawing

The first BBs that even seem acceptable are the NY and the Fuso. So that would be Tier 5 and 6. And even those won't compensate for the downsides that BBs have compared to ships with higher rates of fire. The weakness of BBs in general is in the way that ammo and it's selection works. You can't mix ammo, which imo would be nice to try out. The long reload times on BBs make them extremely unflexible and - consequently - strongly reliable on other ships for support. Their sheer size and low maneuverability means, that whatever fires at a BB wont miss, unless it's poorly aimed. Combine this with the same, completely underpowered repair ability and high automatic repair times (or are those lower on BBs?) and the result is, that you constantly get set afire bow to stern. Now, let's talk about the BBs below the levels I mentioned. Their main downside is the low amount of firepower. If you can't at least point 12 guns at the enemy, it's not even worth trying. If the AP worked better (see below), the issue would be smaller, but even then, the ship that can get a higher amount of metal into the enemy wins. And the game is rigged against these low-tier BBs. (continued below) An interesting proposition. It is the unreliability of the armament and defensive capabilities that I find most frustrating with BBs. Low tier ones especially (Haven't gotten beyond tier 4). The Kawachi might have a decent amount of guns (6 double turrets with 2 designated for each side), but it's completely worthless in long range engagements ( and that's at more than 8km), simply due to it's range. While the flexibility is decent at 5km and less, even better at under 3 km, when you might get into range of the secondaries, getting there generally means losing a significant amount of health and engaging destroyers at those ranges is rather risky (and they will be the first things you encounter at those ranges). But the Upgrades from the Kawachi are even worse. Tier 4 (Myogi) gives us three double turrets Tier 5 (Kongo) gives us 4... Really? The Wyoming isn't that bad in that regard, with it's 6 double turrets. So the US BBs get better much quicker than the japanese ones. That still doesn't make them any good in comparison to the other classes. (see above)

The problem I see is at the lower end of the tiers. Entry-level BBs are totally underpowered. The South Carolina and the Kawachi cannot compete with same tier cruisers. Even lower-tier ships tend to outclass them. In a one on one between a battleship and a cruiser (of the same tier) with players of the same skill-level, the cruiser will always win. Better range, mobility, precision, dps and at long ranges (see speed and range) armor doesn't matter because wooden decks and HE. It's not even a contest. So a lot of low tier players get frustrated and drop BBs alltogether. Now you might say: "Well they just have to get through the three levels of grinding, and then they'll have fun playing the good battleships." Yeah. This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. Now, I don't expect to be a good player from the get-go and to be able to play competetively from the start. I don't even expect to not get frustrated from time to time. But this? Oh, I sure CAN play three tiers of shitty grinds. Or I can have FUN playing other ships. I'm gonna go with the fun, thank you very much. P.S.: I consider it three levels of grinding, because you'll want to grind through the NY and Kongo as well and not play them stock.

I have to agree with MrFingers. A way to drop individual missions is important. Missions might not mean much for high-tier players, but are quite substantial rewards in the lower tiers and help motivate players that have to grind ships (Short-term achievements and all that). I'm currently at max tier 4 with no credible anti-air capacity to speak of and I'm stuck with three AA missions. Yeah, right. At least let me drop them. I have yet to see a mission that takes longer than 24h to reset, so I'll have to take your word for it.

Elendor got it right... Although I do consider it an inconvenience, other options have their disadvantagtes as well and there are only a limited number of options available to game logic in the first place: 1) Reload on first fire command and you have to remember to let all guns fire (as it is now) 2) We can tell every individual turret or gun to reload to another shell type. I rather wouldn't want to have to do that. 3) Reload a gun when that gun fired. Guns that don't fire for a while don't reload, so... meh. 4) Reload a gun that's on target when fired and all not on target when the first gun fires. Forcing a reload would have to change for some of those options to allow to force a reload only on guns that aren't loaded with, or trying to load the requested shell type. This is as far as I have thought it through. I have to admit, that my choice would be Option 4 in combination with the advanced forced reload. Of course, there's always the option of letting the player decide by making this an available choice in the settings menu.

I erroneously posted this in the ticket system and was asked to post it in the "suggestion forum". Since I didn't find that, I'll just post it here... Some UI Elements are really hard to read. This concerns: Game: - The rudder position display when placed over the ship. Especially Battleships, because they tend to be wider. Harbor: - Temporary pop-ins (like the info-list and the contact/channel pop-in) can have lower transparency. - The temporary ship-stats (drop-downs on the left) should definitely have a lower transparency. - In the captain skill-tree even the position of high-level skills is pretty much guesswork Modules: - The popup when hovering over modules in the module Research window. Especially, when the ship in question hasn't been bought/researched or when hovering text over text. Again, I would recommend a lower transparency. External/Visual (Sorry, I'm using the german version, not sure what the exact translation is): - Signals and Camo have the same problem as the modules. I also would recommend rethinking the Menu items. Visual has it's own item, while the captain doesn't, although the skill-tree is what I would consider a full screen and the external stuff is 'garnish' (Small side-menu with two tabs, that would have easily fitted in the bottom left of the module screen, that should rightfully be called the "modifications" screen). Research: - Can't read a thing about any of the ships... Move the research tree a bit to the left and plopp in a permanent space for the stats and fluff on the right of the screen. Pretty much, like... you know... in the three previous screens? Only with extra space for the fluff text. And finally, Profile: - Ranks are good. Already looking forward to more... - Summary is borderline. The upper left part is not easy to read. Maybe a slight adjustment would help - Achievments. Again with the overlay (text over text and medal over medal)... You can, again, make a special space on the right and fix it that way, or tone down on the transparancy. I understand the wish to display the stunning graphics, even in the harbor. However, it is important to have the information not only available, but also readable. I really enjoy the game so far! Keep it up. P.S.: If anyone has other suggestions to solve the problems mentioned above, or has other suggestions or problems concerning the UI readability, feel free to leave a post! EDIT: I forgot to mention that, when hovering over the ship details on the right, the popup that appears with the module details is also unreadable.