Procrastes

If I read the numbers correctly, those cruisers and destroyers that rely on shooting from within smoke will not be overmuch affected by the upcoming changes. On the other hand, it will be much less useful for destroyers to lay a smoke screen in order to help their allies - especially the battleships - in maintaining and driving home a push. In this regard, these changes will be detrimental to team work, and they will also constitute another indirect nerf to destroyers. Since I believe that battleships should be encouraged to be more active 'pushers', and destroyers should be encouraged to use their smoke screens for the benefit of the whole team, I can't really see how the incoming smoke nerf will be good for random battle and PvE gameplay. And that is, after all, what constitutes the main parts of the game.

We should perhaps start a 'fail division thread', instead of a 'failed CV alt attack' thread?

On a side note: Convoy escort duty was a big part of the WW2 naval warfare experience. I really like that Wargaming has implemented this, albeit on a smaller scale, in Operation Raptor Rescue. And this leads to the question, wouldn't it be fun to be in the attackers position, next time? I realize that it is probably relatively easy to build an operations scenario where the human players are in the defensive, trying to hold back wave after wave of incoming enemy ships. Balancing AI response and capabilities from a defensive position, should reasonably be much harder. What I am wondering is, would it be too hard? Or could we expect to see another scenario in the future, where the players are the ones trying to take out an enemy convoy? If so, what new game mechanics could be on the table? Would there perhaps be some sort of respawn function, so that if you were sunk in the initial attack, you could then have another go in another ship in the next stage of that operation? Would you be able to choose between several respawn locations? Etc... What do you think?

I have already decided to never play a tier V carrier. If I do eventually progress up a carrier line, I will skip directly to tier VI, and take the pain of trying to master new mechanics at mid-tier. It's not really fair to my poor team mates, but this is obviously how it has to be. The removal of the ALT attack option for tier IV-V carriers, was simply a bad decision. Leaving aside the dumbing-down turn toward click-and-play, it hurts the game by not giving new players the tools they need to learn the trade properly. New carrier players won't get the chance to master the ALT attack from the start, and will be flabbergasted once they hit tier VI, while non-carrier players at the lower tiers won't learn to handle the same kind of carrier attacks that they will face when they move up the tiers.

I was called a "kunt" by some nitwit in a Nassau in one of my battles today. That sparked off a delightful little discussion in chat, on the theme that if you are determined to toss around badly-aimed insults at your fellow players, you should at the very least begin by learning how to spell correctly.

I have now completed the Operation Raptor Rescue with five stars. It was the last battle before lunchbreak, and after having utterly failed to make any headway in any of my cruisers, that I took my Farragut out just for a change of pace. We nailed it - five stars. All it took, obviously, was me getting into a scout boat and leaving the important work - like fending off the enemy flotilla, and keeping the torpedo bombers at bay - to some real cruiser captains out there. Oh, and I believe it was a Bayern, of all things, that dashed - yes, dashed! - ahead and took out the second aircraft carrier, as well as secured the rendez-vous point well ahead of the Raptor. Who would have thought that?

All right, likes for the whole company are on the the house for this one! Thanks for good, informative and well-written posts, everyone!

But yeah, it would be fun if they did.

Because they are totally going to start off by making a full account on that statement.

I think the Germans are fun. And their battleships ain't too bad, either...! Jokes aside, battleship national preference is clearly a matter of personal playstyle. I really like the German battleships, and I have had a lot of fun in them, but I never got any of the USN ones to work (apart from the Arkansas Beta, which got me my first Kraken). I am struggling to get the Kongo to perform, and she's a good ship by all accounts, so it's probably just me - I kind of suck at gunnery, for one thing. You also tend to see more German than Japanese battleships on the high seas today, or at least that's the impression I've got. So the Kriegsmarine can't be all that unfun to the majority. But then again I am trying to complete the mission where you have to deal two hundred thousand (200 000) points of damage to IJN ships while in a tier VIII-X ship, and suddenly those IJN buggers decide to go all ninja on me... so yeah, I am probably a bit biased at this stage. I would hesitate to invest too much time in grinding the British battleship line at this point, if it was my first one. It's very recently released, and there's just no telling how they might be changed when Wargaming has had time to evaluate their impact on the game, That said, I have the Orion, and she's a blast - well worth getting hold of and have some fun with, even if they should nerf her to the Marianas Trench in the future!

Since this change affects cruisers far less than it affects battleships, maybe it will mean that it will be more gainful to play cruisers again? If so, then that in itself might not be a bad thing...?

Since Wargaming has reserved the right to change game content at any time, at their discretion, and without any obligation to offer refunds, you might find that to be an uphill battle. But go ahead. Edited: Welcome to the forum! Edited again: You shouldn't be too upset about your Mikhail Kutuzov. If you are closer than the stipulated 7,72 km when you get spotted if you fire your guns, you are too close for comfort anyway. There will be torpedoes or pissed off battleships incoming, not to mention radar. This game change likely won't hurt the Kutuzov much, if at all.

- You are in Operation Aegis, sailing closer and closer to an enemy battleship, taking advantage of the fact that its captain is busy shooting at one of your hapless allies, and finally, you are in range - you launch your torpedoes. - Almost immediately, the battleship changes course, in a direction that ensures that it will not be hit with a single one of those torpedoes. It is almost as if the AI captain knew the exact moment when those torpedoes hit the water. Considering he was busy training his guns on another ship, in a completely different direction from you, that was no mean feat. Does this sound familiar? I should probably say, at this point, that I realize at least some of the difficulties that programmers are beset with. Designing an AI (or should it be VI?) captain that is capable of presenting a balanced challenge to human players, must be a very difficult task. How should you deal with, for instance, the threat that a well placed torpedo spread represents? If the AI captain never changes course until it actually spots incoming torpedoes as per normal spotting mechanics, AI battleships would be nothing but food for the Torpedo God. If the AI automatically registers any incoming torpedoes as soon as they are launched, the problem becomes the opposite - only those spreads that are undodgeable from the start, will have any chance of striking home. I obviously can't say for certain, but I have lately been having the impression that some variant of the latter of the two abovementioned AI builds is represented in the current Operations - enemy AI captains will instantly know when torpedoes are incoming, and take steps to avoid them. Only, sometimes they don't. I had a game in my Perth about a week ago, where I decided to try and trick an enemy AI König captain. I launched only one of my torpedoes, and waited to gauge the reaction. The enemy battleship didn't react in the slightest, but sailed straight on. This prompted me to launch the rest of my torpedoes, and they all struck home, one after the other, sending the König to the bottom. I have been trying to figure out what made that torpedo launch different from all the rest. Why didn't the AI captain take evasive action this time? There might of course be any number of possible explanations, but one thing that struck me afterwards was, that I had probably launched all of those torpedoes from within my smoke cover. If so, this might imply that the AI program is simulating the fact that you can, if you have sharp eyes (and a good screen resolution), actually see the little splashes when launched torpedoes break the water after going over the side of the ship. But this is obviously impossible if a smoke screen is in the way. In other words, the AI programmer is doing her best to be fair to us: The AI captain will indeed know when torpedoes are being launched at it - but only if this information would also have been available to a sharp-eyed human player with his wits about him! I don't know if I am on the right track, here. I might not even be close. But I thought this would be a good subject for a discussion, and so here are my two cents' worth to begin with.* So, any thoughts on this? * I haven't even started speculating about whether AI captain skills include the common torpedo evasion tactic of randomly altering course ands speed. How you would try to gauge that, is beyond me.

Thanks for sparing my feelings. But I am not talking about random course changes; I am talking about course changes that occur immediately after I have launched my torpedoes. Of course, I could be wrong - getting some input from the community is exactly the reason why I started this thread to begin with!

I think you've got some kind of dazzle camouflage pattern on the De Grasse? It's so good-looking, I am honestly ashamed every time I paint her with the Victory Camo colours. But those xp bonuses are just too damn sweet to forgo...

Now I have tried out my Cleveland in Operation Killer Whale. She's crazy strong in this operation, that's for sure - and I'll bet she's generally very good in the other operations as well, given that the opposition - lower tier cruisers, destroyers and aircraft carriers - is overall the same. I sank ten ships and downed twice as many planes in each of my first two battles, without breaking a sweat. The first time we didn't lose a single ship of our own either; although we still lost of course because no one thought to go to the evac point before the time ran out.

I admit that one of the first things I check when I look through the battle list ahead of the battle, is if there's a destroyer advantage to either team. If it lies with my team: If it lies with the enemy: Now if this is a rational way of thinking or not, I honestly can't say.

I'm not sure either, but I would guess that bot-users are trying to farm xp without having to invest the time it would take them to play through the battle. And yes, this means that some people are trying to play the game without playing the game. Some people are strange.

This would mean that the Perth - also known as "The World's Cutest Little Cruiser" - would be equally good, right?

I think that more camouflage options would a good idea, overall! It adds a kind of customization flavour to the game experience, which is a thing I appreciate in most games. And I can't imagine that Wargaming would see the added xp coefficient (in any) as a reason not to create more camo patterns for the lower tiers, since those paint buckets you buy in the store can be applied equally on all ships.

Duly noted. I have amended my post.

Wow, a lot of good posts since yesterday! Here are some few further reflections: Ok, I admit that a carrier in the team is almost mandatory to secure a good result in Killer Whale. But the carrier is such a special role, that I didn't include it in the ship comparison. I also admit that the Graf Spee has a hard time dealing with the destroyers in the rush for evacuation. She needs back-up badly at this stage. And thirdly, I admit that the Cleveland seems to be a solid choice. For some reason I haven't played her in Operations, yet. That should probably be amended. As for the Budyonny and the De Grasse, they are both good ships for this, and indeed most, operations. They are swift and powerful damage-dealers. The Perth is excellent for Operation Newport, at any rate - her smoke gives her durability despite having no heal, and she's got good guns and excellent torpedoes. But she is somewhat weak in her AA capabilities. Is the Leander really a good choice for Operation Killer Whale? I had heard that she has a hard time doing any damage to the forts.

I have now run the Operation Killer Whale twice in my Farragut. The first battle was a win, although my main contribution was probably dancing the torpedo beat with all those torpedo bombers and destroyers that swarm in from the east once the primary objective is completed. I was eventually sunk, but I stalled the enemy enough that at least four of our team survived to tell the tale, so I guess it was a worthwhile sacrifice. The second battle was an unmitigated disaster, in no small amount due to me playing like a total noob. I started out by accidentally driving into our battleship, the stately Arizona, and having apologized most humbly I was rewarded by the battleship captain with the laconic assignation "imbecil" in the chat. I thought the assessment to be a bit harsh at the time, but found it hard to argue later on when I managed to press the 'smoke' button instead of the 'Defensive AA' button when all those torpedo bombers swarmed in. I could but hope that the smoke would hide my shame as I sat and watched how the Arizona went to the bottom half a mile off shore, taking with her all our hopes of ever reaching the evac point. Not my proudest hour. However, and considering that I still gained more experience points than the Arizona in battle no 2 above, I must agree that a destroyer can actually make a useful contribution to victory in Operation Killer Whale. Even so, I would say that I would have made a better contribution in any cruiser, playing as I did. A destroyer simply does not have the damage dealing capacity to get ahead in the early game. Even the Duca D'Aosta would probably be more efficient than any destroyer in this operation; most especially since she can mount both the Sonar and the Defensive AA consumables at the same time. I think I might try her out tonight, if I have the leisure to do so. But which are the best ships for Operation Killer Whale, hands down? I would say, probably the Graf Spee and the Molotov. Both have guns that are able to quickly take out the forts in the early stage of the battle, and while the Molotov is the faster by far, the Graf Spee is much tankier and has a better chance of surviving the rush to the evac point in the last stage. And the slower firing guns of the Graf Spee are compensated for by her secondaries, which are excellent for a cruiser - for one thing, she can do a really classy drive-by shooting run past those on-shore installations!

This well illustrates the point I was trying to make. If there was a punishment system that penalized players not for their first issue, but for every following connection problem/system crash/other thing that happened to their game, it would mean that someone who had bad luck once, would have to abstain from the game from that point on if he or she wanted to avoid the risk of being unjustly punished. I don't think most people would consider that to be fair. I know I don't.

There are a lot of reasons why someone can be AFK without being at fault. Collective punishment regardless of individual guilt, is generally considered to be a bad thing. Let's not punish people for playing the game, please?