Procrastes

Something has to be done about team killers putting the blame on the victims. You fire off a volley of torpedoes without making sure that none of your team members is in the line of fire, with the result that those torpedoes sink an ally - and then you blame HIM for not bothering to keep a good lookout on his surroundings? I mean, honestly? Are you serious? It's really very simple: When one of your torpedoes strikes an ally, it is always your fault. Blaming your ally for not dodging your torpedo is kind of* like throwing a rock in the back of the head of someone walking in front of you, and then blaming him for being in the way of your intended target. It doesn't work like that. And no, you can't shift the blame by writing "look out for the torpedoes" in the chat, any more than you could by shouting "look out for the rock" as you threw it. What you can do, if you have torpedoed an ally, is write a sincere apology in the chat, saying that you messed up, you made a mistake and you are sorry. It's just as easy as writing a string of uncalled-for abuse, which is why the prevalence of the latter is so puzzling. If the ally in question is a mature individual, the apology is likely to be accepted with no hard feelings. This is, after all, a game where we are supposed to have fun together. *I write "kind of", since this is a war game and friendly fire is a tactical element of the game. Throwing rocks at people in real life is criminal assault.

Oh, I don't know. I got 250 anti-detonation flags and those are at least never useless on any ship. Although I mostly hoist them on my destroyers. Then I got 250 of those flags that raise the fire chance on HE shells a little but also raise the risk to get detonated with 5 percent. How do I solve this? Waitaminute... didn't I just get a whole bunch of anti-detonation flags...? The fickle gods of Karma are smiling...

I won't miss the Danae, since I already have her! And I think I might just keep her. She's good, uncomplicated tier IV fun, just like the Kuma. As you say, quite the giggle!

For some reason I never got the Kirov to work for me. I'ts one of the few ships I've actually sold. But I don't blame either me or the ship, it's just a case of which ships work for which person. Then I got the Budyonny, and, oh, my. I do love that ship. Even though I get constantly citadelled because I keep making the wrong decisions on when to push, or I turn at the wrong moment and then there's an allied Texas pushing me into enemy fire... but never mind. It's always fun to drive that beautiful ship. Having read this thread, and a few others, I am more and more inclined to skip past the Emerald and go directly for the Leander. Almost no one badmouths the Leander, and that says quite a lot.

With the ongoing development of the game, I expect that we are sooner or later going to see a tree of Russian / USSR battleships sailing down the server. I am sure that I am neither the first, nor the most qualified, to make a guess as to what they are going to be like. I am curious as to which stray thoughts on the matter might be about. To start off a discussion, here are some of mine. Most USSR ships so far have had excellent guns, across all the lines. They have better range and shell velocity than their peers, they have good AP and HE damage, and they have good or even excellent accuracy. Their destroyers - but not so much the cruisers - have balanced this with slow turret traverse. It would be reasonable to expect some take on this feature to appear in a future battleship line. I find it likely that USSR battleships will have better range than their counterparts, at least in the lower to mid-tiers. While I don't believe that the accuracy will be any better at close range, it might be a bit better at maximum range. This might be balanced out by slower turret traverse and/or weaker armour layout. An alternative to longer base range might be access to spotter aircraft at lower tiers than their peers. With better stats at long range, speed might suffer. They would not have to be able to close the distance as fast as, say, a German battleship, and they would prefer heavier armour to speed as a defensive measure. They might possibly have good turning characteristics, at least at the lower tiers. They would likely have the biggest (i.e. worst) detection ranges of all the battleship lines. On lower-to-mid tiers we will probably see pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts like the Imperator Nikolai I, although presumably with more balanced stats. From there on might follow the Arkhangelsk and the Novorossyisk, built in USA and Italy but on loan / claimed as reparations respectively. These will probably have the same stats as their national counterparts but with better main armament range (like the current Murmansk light cruiser outranges the Omaha). As for the higher tiers, having googled a bit for actual historical information leads me to hypothesize that we might see some really big USSR "only on paper" battleships, with lots of armour and hit points, bigger than the Yamato but with weaker guns. Something along the lines of the Friedrich der Grosse and Grosser Kurfürst, but more focused on medium to long range than close-quarters brawling, maybe. Future USSR battleships will not have torpedoes. I hope. Please note that these thoughts are not based on any kind of actual game information, from Wargaming or any other source. And they are certainly not suggestions - I, personally, see no great appeal in a possible line of "sniper battleships" that would further discourage battleship drivers from seeking to be in close contact with the enemy. And so, over to the community. Any thoughts on this?

So would I! But with those navies, we pretty much know what ships we'll be getting.

In my Scharnhorst, yesterday: - Firing one nine-shot salvo at an enemy Schors at 6,2 km range, straddling him but missing every shot. - Firing the next nine-shot salvo at the same Schors at 12,2 km range, straddling him but missing every shot. - Getting into a close-quarters brawl with the same Schors, firing three aft-turret AP salvoes into his bow at 500 metres range or less, hitting but doing next to no damage after reducing him to about twelve remaining hit points or so (whether due to damage saturation, or overpenetration, or bounces, I really can't say). - Getting sunk by the same Schors... ...and then watch him burn to death from fires set by my secondaries. I have thought quite a bit on this, going through several alternative theories as to cause and effect. My conclusion? I must consider the possibility that I suck at gunnery.

You, know, if they put in Seagal dialogue with any kind of actor skill level delivery... it just wouldn't be Seagal.

Trust the French to build something out of a Jules Verne novel. What a magnificent ship. I doubt that she will ever see service in World of Warships, however, with the current - and very sensible - ban on the inclusion of submarines. Although I suppose it would be possible to set her up as some kind of mini-cruiser with a very small detection radius and an extremely limited turret traverse on her guns. The 'dive' function would be implemented indirectly with a combination of a really low HP value and no armour whatsoever... tier V? A sort of WoWs version of the ELC AMX?

What... is this?

You know, when I first saw this picture... ...I thought you'd been offered the Tirpitz with a 100% discount.

My friend got the offer to buy a Kamikaze destroyer (the non-R model). He turned it down. The Compulsive Collector

Thanks!

And to balance the fearsome firepower, the firing arcs of the foremost and the rearmost turrets would have their firing arcs totally restricted by those eminently well positioned life boats.

I am having rather enjoyable matches in my Royal Navy cruisers so far, although I do get killed a lot. Learning how to to tread the fine line between derring-do and caution is a challenge. One point of note is that I haven't found much use for the heal consumable, so far - most of the damage I receive is from AP shot, which is, as far as I can determine, largely irreparable. Or maybe I am missing something? I have currently advanced as far as the Danae. Based on what I've gathered from the opinions on this forum - i.e. that the Royal Navy cruisers begin to come into their own from tier VI and onward - I am considering jumping past the Emerald at tier V with free xp, and getting the Leander at once. Would that be a good idea?

If that were the case, the premium spotter plane ought reasonably to have been buffed as well, don't you think? This sounds more like it! I hope you are right. Also, hopefully, someone from Wargaming will get back to us with some information soon. I think the extended flying time for the spotter plane could be a huge selling point for the Perth!

Priceless! The question is, was he joking? Or did he really think it was a "hax"?

What, you mean that we're all running around in WG:s little mind-maze, here? And I left my tinfoil hat at home...!!! Edited: Seriously, though, WG taking the pulse on the community should probably be regarded as a good thing.

The white lines floating on the water look like those "dead body" lines you see in movies all the time. It's a bit distracting. I keep thinking stuff like, " crime scene - do not disturb - this is where they found the dead island".

If the leak was totally bogus, I would have expected some member of the WG staff to have put in a post about it by now. But I agree that we should not read the new list as if it was written in stone.

I wonder if they are planning to fix the other Perth bug, in that the premium version of the Spotter Plane consumable has a much shorter active time than the non-premium version? The non-premium Spotter Plane has a reload of 360 seconds, and is up in the air for 180 seconds. The premium Spotter Plane has a much shorter reload of 240 seconds, but then it only stays in the air for 100 seconds. At least I hope it's a bug, and not a feature. Although I must admit that the longer reload time of the non-premium little Walrus is sort of logical - it makes sense that it would take more time filling up all those extra fuel tanks - I would expect both versions to cost the same if they were balanced out like this. If I am to fork over 22 500 credits (or 15 doubloons) for a premium scout plane, I expect it to come with nothing but benefits. Or am I up in the blue, here?

You are not alone. For the record: I totally agree that spending half or more of the battle trying to sneak through the lines, tunnelvisioning away everything but the mirage of a solitary, defenceless faraway carrier, is a completely wasteful strategy. My post was more in fun than anything else. Although I stand by the point that if you do happen to come across a solitary, defenceless carrier, the joy of hunting it down should not be cruelly and unnecessarily diminished by making its planes magically fireproof.

This. Setting the damn thing on fire and chasing it merrily down the map border is so totally worth the hours (ok, minutes, but you get my drift) spent sneaking through the archipelagos, dodging cruisers and evading those bloody annoying airplanes that buzz around like mayflies at a liquorice party... and this - this - they want to take from me? Philistines!!! And I would like to see how this "Fiery Take-off" skill would materialize in practicality. Is there some guy in a Totenkopf cap who shoots shirkers through the back of the head? Or do we get Bill Pullman making that 'Independence Day' speech again (which admittedly might make even me drive a plane through a burning house)?

Am I to infer that the fighter plane not only fights for you, but also spots for you? So that it can help you see out of the smoke? (And if so, does it watch out for incoming torpedoes as well?)

"Carriers don't move. We've got planes." (or, the Steadfast Carrier Captain) The flank has fallen, enemy ships are pushing hard, the few remaining allied ships are retreating, and the team's carrier is about to be overrun. - Concerned team members to the CV player: "Enemy ships coming - carrier plz move!" - CV player: "You're new to this game, right? Carriers don't move. We've got planes." - Concerned team members: "..." The concerned team members make a few more valiant efforts to convince the carrier player to move. The carrier player, steadfastly standing by his initial point, refuses to move and is subsequently sunk in short order. The tone from everyone is respectful throughout the whole thing, with no hard feelings from either side, neither before nor after the sinking. ---------- Note: This story is actually from a Jingles youtube WoWs video of some repute. Jingles makes a very entertaining show in outlining the tactical and strategical differences between airfields, that don't move, and carriers, that do. The whole episode is, in my mind, a weirdly beautiful illustration of the simple fact that reality is a point of view.