Procrastes

Independence (1/1/1) : 14 New Mexico : 14 Cleveland :28 Farragut : 28 Arizona : 17 Shinonome : 20 Mutsu : 21 Ryūjō (1/2/2) : 17 Fusō : 19 Aoba : 24 Fubuki : 18 Graf Spee : 25 Ernst Gaede : 15 Warspite : 15 Leander : 24 Molotov : 13 Budyonny : 9 + 1 = 10. See post 103 above. Dunkerque : 17 Anshan : 11 - 3 = 8. See post 103 above. Duca d'Aosta : 22 Perth : 30

Atago: 37 + 1 = 38. She's been with us almost from the start. She's seen patch after patch roll by, and weathered many an update. She's still strong.Mikhail Kutuzov: 53 - 3 = 50. That combination of speed, smoke and those deadly, long range fire-starting 152 mm guns... an excellent ship!

Independence (1/1/1) : 14 New Mexico : 14 Cleveland :27 Farragut : 28 Arizona : 20 Shinonome : 20 Mutsu : 21 Ryūjō (1/2/2) : 17 Fusō : 19 Aoba : 24 Fubuki : 18 Graf Spee : 25 Ernst Gaede : 15 Warspite : 15 Leander : 24 Molotov : 13 Budyonny : 8 + 1 = 9. I like her fast-firing guns better than the ones on the Molotov. I think. Anyway, a dashing ship - stronger than the Duca d'Aosta! Dunkerque : 17 Anshan : 14 - 3 = 11. A poor man's Gremyaschy. Duca d'Aosta : 22 Perth : 30

My wife gave me the battleship Tirpitz for Christmas last year. I am the most fortunate of men.

I agree. If you open fire at the Gneisenau, then don't miss - or she will punish you for it! The Gneisenau is one of the most underrated ships in the game, I think - if maybe mostly because she's always compared to her more glamorous sister, the Lady Scharnhorst. This is quite a nice pair of sisters, in my opinion. The Scharnhorst has those glorious guns, that turn more quickly than other battleship guns, fire more quickly than other battleship guns, and have better shell velocity than other battleship guns. Who cares that they don't pack quite the same punch as other battleship guns? If you bounce, just load and fire again! The Gneisenau, on the other hand, does pack the punch to trade shots with the big boys. True, she has fewer guns than other battleships on her level, and yes, this does make a difference - but given half a chance, and with just a little bit of luck - oh, how she can punish the unbelievers!

The Victory camos give very handsome bonuses, and they are also rather good-looking, which is important after all - I want my ships too look good in the game. So I bought a §§§§-load of them, and I currently use them on most of my ships. So if there is a question on whether you get your money's worth, then I'd be inclined to say yes!

This! While I do see how it could be interesting to keep track of one's stats, as a mark of personal progress, I, for my part, don't feel that way way at all. I don't compete either against myself or against other players; I simply want to have fun. I have read some posts where people have expressed feelings of constant worry, with bad games ruining their stats, and so on. To me, that sounds utterly bewildering, since it would seem to suggest that simply having stats, and caring about them, entails losing a lot of the "having fun" part of the game. But to each his own. This is not to say that I don't care about winning - I always play the game to the best of my ability. But I don't really care about whether I win or lose a certain battle, as long as it is a good game and I can have fun in the company of fellow gamers!

Brawling is the way to go, in a battleship! I get sunk a lot, but I also have a lot of fun! And maybe one day I will get the hang of when to push, and when to retreat, and actually get somewhat good at it..

That is true, but the HMS Leander herself is not as well known, for obvious reasons. I suspect that Wargaming might have decided to keep the two more famous names available for release as premiums, at some future date.

The Battle of the River Plate? - We do have the Admiral Graf Spee in the game. I'd welcome the Ajax, Exeter and Achilleus, but let's face it; the Graf Spee is the ship that earned by far the most renown as a result of that action. The Battle off Samar? - Hadn't heard much of that one, before. I am reading up on it now. Holy smokes, what a story! I agree; that battle alone could form the basis of half a tech tree of in-game ships! I hope we will at least get the USS Johnston at some future time. The HMS Glowworm should indeed be in the game. I hope we will get her someday, as a companion ship to the HMS Gallant!

Benson: 1 - 3 = 0. Sorry, Mr Benson, but there can be only three.Atago: 42 Mikhail Kutuzov: 50Tirpitz : 5 + 1 = 6. An Armoured Colossus. Edited: ....aaaand the Tirpitz is secured as one of the top three, of her tier! Yay!

Independence (1/1/1) : 14New Mexico : 14Cleveland :27Farragut : 27 + 1 = 28. See post 95 above.Arizona : 20Shinonome : 20Mutsu : 21Ryūjō (1/2/2) : 17Fusō : 19Aoba : 24Fubuki : 16Graf Spee : 25 Ernst Gaede : 15 Warspite : 15Molotov : 13 Budyonny : 11Gnevny : 5 - 3 = 2. See post 95 above.Dunkerque : 17Anshan : 17Duca d'Aosta : 22Perth : 30

Here in Sweden, it's much cheaper than in Denmark to send letters. So, yay for the Postnord joint-national company on that account, I guess. Too bad they tend not to actually deliver those letters... so, boo on them for that. As if they care.

Enter the Habbakuk. Holy halibut. I'd heard some vague talk about this project, but I just dismissed it as crazy talk. A humungous carrier made out of frozen water and wood pulp... we absolutely have to have that in the game, somehow. A PvE mission mode would be perfect! (Is that a battleship, sailing on the starboard side?)

On the other hand, the EU community got the chance to buy the Mikasa more than a year or so before she was made generally available for the NA (they had a chance to win her in some mission, though). So it's not all one-sided.

I am considering using my dragon hoard of free xp to push my Blyskawica captain up to 19 points, and then use him to grind out commander xp for the rest of the bunch. Since Captain Ksavery is still only a mere kontradmiral, promoting him to Supreme Shoe Polish will cost me upwards of 1,2 million xp. Doing this would be totally batshit crazy. Especially since it would probably be a lot smarter to promote my Gremyaschy captain, Captain Romanov, instead, as I can actually use him on a lot more ships. But I just tend to have so much fun in the Blyskawica! The main problem is, if I do this, then a week or so later Wargaming will totally nerf the Blyskawica into the seabed. And the Premium Fleet will lose one of its best ships. And the Polish Navy will cease to exist. And it will all be my fault...

Independence (1/1/1) : 14New Mexico : 17Cleveland :27Farragut : 25 + 1 = 26. A versatile and very capable ship. The option to use 'Defensive AA', and give overeager carrier captains a nosebleed, should not be underestimated.Arizona : 20Shinonome : 20Mutsu : 21Ryūjō (1/2/2) : 17Fusō : 19Aoba : 27Fubuki : 19Graf Spee : 25 Ernst Gaede : 15 Warspite : 14 Leander : 23Molotov : 13 Budyonny : 11Gnevny : 8 - 3 = 5. Clearing the list.Dunkerque : 16Anshan : 17Duca d'Aosta : 22Perth : 30

Benson: 9Atago: 42 Mikhail Kutuzov: 47Tirpitz : 8 + 1 = 9. The Tirpitz has a pure and simple battle routine: "If it's close, shoot it. If it's closer, torp it. If it's far away, ignore it." Tons of fun!Shōkaku (2/2/2): 4 - 3 = 1

Benson: 8Atago: 42Mikhail Kutuzov: 45+1= 46Tirpitz : 10 + 1 = 11. A strong, beautiful ship - the epitome of naval power!Shōkaku (2/2/2): 10 -3 = 7

Why, thanks! Have a like in return!

Not a bad idea! But for it to work out well in a game-balance context, those special captains should either be readily available for all, at any time, or they should be simply eye candy on the bridge - having extra special super skills could quickly become too much of an advantage, if not available to all.

The extended smoke duration upgrade is quite useful, on the Perth.

That should be available only on the Graf Spee.

You deserve an answer, captain. Some time ago, there was a mission running, which, if completed, netted you with having a representation of the actor Steven Seagal added as a USN captain to your barracks. This was a tribute to the 90s movie "Under Siege", which didn't - or so I've been told - get a very friendly critical reception. You got a special look-alike picture of Mr Seagal, and I've been told that it changes as he gains experience, so that it will, in time, reflect his current age. (Being past forty myself, I will refrain from further comment on this.) The in-game Seagal captain has certain bonuses to his 'Expert Marksman' and 'Expert Loader' skills; both are more efficient than on normal captains. Unfortunately, this doesn't really help. Captain Seagal is still a somewhat controversial choice for the Admiralty majority of players*. Mostly, this has to do with the voice-over. The voice-over on the Seagal captain is, for those too young to remember his heyday as an Martial Arts movie star**, probably a unique experience. It consists of Mr Steven Seagal himself, uttering the standard, familiar lines from the game. He does this with his usual level of panache and empathy. It doesn't come across all that well. I have my Steven Seagal Captain on the Texas, the Arizona and the Alabama. My Arkansas Beta is currently commanded by Captain George Peppard, from the TV-series A-team.*** * Or at least the majority of those players who have posted about it on the forum. ** Thanks for "Nico", Mr Seagal! That brutal elbow smash was poetry in motion for a sixteen-year old kick-flick addict! *** I swear, it is him, the picture is simply spot on!

I agree with this. Having the wrecks float around for a longer time than they currently do might be functional if the maps were bigger, but as it is, battles are fought in such close quarters that we'd end up in the Sargasso Sea at the end of every battle, irrespective of where we started it. It would just be annoying as hell.