1MajorKoenig

Yep the last iteration was garbage. Hope WG uses the time now to change the concept from totally nonsense to something decent. Proposals are out there

Auf besonderen Wunsch — ein neuer Bug. Und das obwohl ich das immer noch für sinnlos halte und den brachialen Charme des Rammbugs bevorzuge — schlecht sieht es auch nicht aus:

Also Georg von Hase’s memories are very interesting. Hase was Artillery Officer on Board SMS Derfflinger

Ban T7 CVs??? You sir are a daredevil

Hoffe nicht. Das ermutigt WG bloss so einen Schwachsinn auch weiterhin zu verzapfen. Russian Bias, Power Creep und ein Schiffdesign, das das Spiel nicht braucht! All components for a major disaster

Well. First of all a warship is full of explosive stuff so in general ANY warship can blow up. However - the Germans implemented effective procedures after Doggerbank so they did not suffer from fatal magazine explosions at Jutland. Mind you - a lot of these ships received critical hits there but didn’t blow up. They also used a different type of explosives. While things are never black and white I think some of the losses of the RN could have been avoided had they implemented the learnings from the previous battles. But that wasn’t - quite frankly - the thinking of the time in the RN. The RN saw itself as an allmighty force back then - something that clearly hindered learning from mistakes

typ 1923/24

Because they went with BB guns with BB dispersion. Would they have gone with BB guns with cruiser accuracy the Deutschlands would have been a great high tier part of the tree following Hipper. However that train left long ago.

Intersting thought. I was thinking along similar lines when I got Kutuzov. I think a normal M-Class is T7 at best but as a German Kutuzov She could probably do T8 or so? However these guns are essentially T5 guns. And I don’t think I have seen any reports that these shells are Stalinium-dipped either -> don’t know if they cut it at T8-10... still interesting concept

Sure — here you go: 1. Yorck is the one top right 2. Admiral Zenker proposed a Cruiser Killer Design during Weimar Germany’s Fleet debate - armed with long 4x2 30.5cm (I believe L/56 or even longer) and steam turbines but literally no armour. However the design was politically a nightmare and Zenker was fired. Ironically something similar happened with the Panzerschiffs only few years later. But even that was a huge debate in Germany. I always wanted these in WOWS - and I would name them “Admiral Zenker” as these were his brain child: While partially true I prefer ships that are still having their “realistic character”. Stat values may be bend or adjusted but as long as you can still say: “yep that still looks/feels like XYZ” I am fine. WG has done this “Reichsflugscheiben-Buffing”, eg. on Russian Heavy Cruisers which barely managed 2 shots a minute and had atrocious dispersion due to the turret design or Russian Battleship Survivability where Real Russian BBs couldn’t b produced with the armour demanded as the industry wasn’t able to manufacture these - but every time it happens it feels wrong to me. Also: usually WG Takes the real value as starting point. In the case of the M-Class Scout Cruiser you would at least need to triple the rate of fire to be able to do anything. Given “German” HE in the game... oh well. And the strength of the M-Class wasn’t so much fighting power but more endurance and such for oceanic use. Plus: Minotaur is an arguably more modern and more capable design. But yea you COULD make Mikasa work at T10 - however at some point one need to ask whether it’s the right thing to do. I would put M-Class at T7

You answered your own question. A separate class is not needed as it is only about the MM. BCs work fine in a BB slot

Classy These old armoured cruisers are delicious! Be it Prinz Adalbert, Scharnhorst, Roon, Minotaur or whatever! The should be in the game (and yea I know about the „reasons“ for WG to ignore them - it’s not true)

Bin möglicherweise etwas eingerostet - gestern eine schlappe Runde Graf Peppelin versemmelt. Und am Ende weniger Dmg von den Fliegern als von den Secs. Nicht mein Tag

Do you have any info on that Design?

Das ist zwar richtig aber trotzdem nicht gut. WG scheint der Meinung zu sein, dass der ursprüngliche „richtige“ Schiffsteil des Contents ausreicht um das Spiel zu etablieren und mit billigen T9+10 Kopiemüll abzumelken. Das zeigt in der Tat, dass WG leider scheinbar aufgegeben hat die Playerbase vernünftig auszubauen und stattdessen nur noch auf‘s Farmen der Stammkundschaft geht.

Das ist genau der Part, der dem Spiel am meisten fehlt! Auch für UK zum Beispiel. Die hundertste T9 Kopie - lieblos hingerotzt...? Nee Danke ! Aber Lion, Seydlitz und Derfflinger? Jaaaa

Well up to T5 it is just typical German cruiser designs and portraying the evolution quite well. Afterwards the main issue is that the Kriegsmarine didn’t have neither that many or particularly capable cruiser designs. Basically all you find (and mentioned) is T7+T8 stuff. Cruiser Q is for example almost identical to M. And never a T9 - these ships are T7 or T8 at best. Don’t get me wrong - if one can split a non-existent Russian Cruiser Line you can of course even double split the German one. But I would prefer to split the tree at T6 and to branch off a super cruiser line which can be relatively easily filled with real designs. And: it would be something special. T6 would be the Deutschland T7 D Class T8 P Class T9 BC1928 T10 O Class btw: Yorck isn’t “WW1 fantasy” - it’s a 1920s Deutschland preliminary called I/10

Well that‘s unlikely. However +1 for my favourite topic :-) In Hood‘s case it is quite easy - use the proposed Refit and call the Ship „Anson“. Alternatively we could use the J3 Design which is basically a 3x3 Hood for the tree instead. Long story short: I would leave prems as they are and use other designs if needed. The bigger problem are the higher tiers T3-5 would be Indefatigable, Lion, Tiger - T6 Renown and past Admiral there are a couple of designs that could be used (mainly G3 which is a faster Nelson for T8 likely).

Klar für die Optik kann man natürlich machen was man will. In der Realität hätten diverse Faktoren dagegengesprochen: - kaum Effekt da die Verlängerung auf Wasserlinie nicht groß wäre / minimaler Effekt auf Geschwindigkeit - relativ viel Aufwand - Schiff war nicht nass - Schiff war zu langsam als dass Nässe überhaupt ein Problem hätte werden können Daher haben das weder Amis, Engländer oder Japaner gemacht (New York, Revenge, QE, Fuso). Aber für die Optik und in Computerspielen ist natürlich alles erlaubt und diese Bugform war ja zu Ende des 1WK der letzte Schrei (L3,20, etc. GKs)

No they most likely won’t. And I didn’t propose such thing. I proposed changing Def AA

Jawoll!

Its fair to disagree. Currently BBs are the most effective AA ships. Zero incentive to work with AA cruisers. And I am not talking about stacking (blobbing) but about the possibility for (even single) AA cruiser to mitigate incoming CV strikes / damage to friendlies without creating “no-fly-zones” / shutdowns which are bad for the game. Ideally AA cruisers can cover multiple friendlies to a degree without the need to blob up all in one spot and without locking down the CV entirely. Therefore throwing off the aim is much better than straight killing and a Consumable (with to be determined Cooldown) is better than constant abilities to make it useable and still counterable at the same time. It would be good to test this on the sandbox

Yea would be a possibility - though very “gamey”. Plus: I would prefer reduced incoming damage rather than increased outgoing damage.

Its not necessarily a bad idea with these clouds. My problem with it is that everything around CVs and AA is too much damage focussed only. Hence why I proposed to make Def AA more of a “mitigate Dmg for allies” rather than “increase Dmg to Planes” thing