Procrastes

You will hardly be the only one. Still, my advice would be to wait and see what the actual impact on the game will be. Whatever else they may do, SAP secondaries won't start any fires - and that's a pretty big part of the damage output of most secondaries.

For the record, I still retain my full secondary builds for all my German battleships as well as for the Massachusetts and the Georgia. I will not let them go quietly into the night. The arrival of a new top tier meme-darling won't change that, especially if it is labeled with the new "nerfable/mayfly" tag.

Are you implying that WG is about to release a ship that will be strong against most targets other than Russian ones...? 'Faith, sirrah - I am sure they would do no such thing...!

I'm no expert on equestrian matters, but isn't "whinny" a sound occasionally emitted by horses in order to convey information? Joking aside, if the Napoli is supposed to be a premium ship, this would seem to support the theories put forth elsewhere on this forum that Wargaming has chosen to not give sliver line Italian battlership SAP secondaries in order to boost the sale of premium ships that are equipped with SAP secondaries. Or do I get this wrong? How big a difference having SAP secondaries will actually mean is something I guess we are about to find out. Let's just hope it won't mean that all non-SAP secondary built ships will get shafted, right...?

This... ...was reason enough for me to get the Erich Loewenhardt. And I have not regretted it. As for her (his?) general play style and performance, Captains @Animalul2012 and @Verblonde sum it up perfectly in posts #2-3 above, with the reservation that I'd hesitate to call her OP. But then again, no CV is anywhere near OP in my hands. I mostly play them in Scenario battles, since I am loth to burden my team with my abysmal CV skills in a PvP environment. The Stukas and the Messerschmitts don't seem all that hard to get the hang of, though, and you can probably just forget about the torpedo bombers. All in all she's a fun ship to play for a CV, and she's an excellent complement to the Ark Royal at the same tier!

Really? I have distinct recollections of seeing, on a number of occasions, one (1) plane dropping from the sky the instant I activate the "increased AA" sector. Mind you, this did nothing to stop or even alleviate the damage from the two following attack waves, so in all practicality I guess it was little more than a cynical "pilot tax" to make me feel better about getting slam dunked.

This is funny because it's true. Ever watched one of those stock market/corporate intrigue movies from the 80's? The ones where there's this big bad evil guy stock broker/CEO entering the stage seemingly invincible with any number of unfair advantages in act one, making everybody's life miserable with deeds of arrogant cruelty throughout act two, and then getting unexpetedly torpedoed by the little guy/working-class hero in act three? Watching this happen gives the same sort of inner joy one experiences when watching a destroyer sneak through the lines and sink the CV (even one's own CV) early on in the battle, with the main difference being that the average CV has considerably less charisma than Michael Douglas. WG should make their next buyable-for-money tier X ship into a CV, and name it the 'Michael Douglas'. I'd buy it.

I have nothing whatsoever to say against CV players. I accord them the same respect I extend to any other player, regardless of their choice of ship or ship class. No one should be punished for simply playing the game with the tools provided. I do, however, have reservations against CV:s as a ship class. Reworked CV:s are a bad game design, for reasons explained ad nauseam elsewhere. Since Wargaming seems intent to not fix the problem, the discontented players will keep voicing their discontent.

And the Lord looked down from His high abode, and beheld a CV. And He saw how this CV went on to rain Fire and Brimstone down on the ships of Men, and these Men were without Counterplay, for the CV was Reworked. And the Lord was wroth, seeing that Reworked CV:s were bad Bad for the Game. And so the Lord sent two Musashis and a Graf Zeppelin down to do His work, and they smote the CV with great wrath from afar, and from their spawn points did they Blap him. And there was much rejoicing at the gates of S:t Peter, though less so in S:t Petersburg.

Sinop and Belfast, those I get. They are definitely on the overstrong/broken side of the tracks. But do you really consider the Haida to be a broken ship? She's the alpha dog at tier VII when it comes to DD vs. DD dogfights, but her lack of torpedo power - which is her balancing factor - usually means that she is ill equipped to either defend or yolo rush a flank on her own. (If she'd had two torpedo launchers, she'd have been broken as hell and no mistake!) I share your pain.

I'll get her. I have a thing for destroyers, and this one seems to bring a few additions to the table. But I will miss the hydro.

It is true that any slight delay to a computerized process is completely unbearable. Waiting for an e-mail that takes five extra seconds to arrive is agony, whereas a delay of five months for a letter from Bremerhafen to San Francisco 1871 would have been nothing to get upset about. Truly, we live in strange aeons...

I readily admit that I don't know what effect, if any, the report system may have in actuality. I would guess that is exists partly in order to provide a means for players to vent their frustration after having had a bad game or two. I mean, if I were to report someone because I think he or she "plays poorly" (because that is one report category, right?), that would be an entirely subjective opinion on my part, and one that I sincerely hope would not lead to any action from Wargaming versus the reported party. On the other hand, I do feel that reports for "misbehaviour in chat" could and should be treated seriously. Unlike purely subjective views, such reports can be checked against the chat log - and harassment in chat is something that can have serious consequences. It goes the whole range from a simple "[beep] you" to deliberate racial slurs and direct personal attacks. This is why I am usually stringent with reporting any serious chat abuse I may encounter, even though I very seldom bother with other forms of reports. It is also why I don't hold with reporting out of spite or for other irrelevant reasons (such as reporting all CV players, for instance). It may seem a harmless thing to do at the time - just the click of button - but it is really something more than that. It is an act of deliberate unkindness towards another player - and that is something I would never do without good reason.

So you are deliberately misusing - and thereby devaluating - the report system, to express... what, exactly? Do you resent other players for spending money you wish to had the means to spend yourself? Or do you resent Wargaming for putting a ship up for sale and you choose to vent your disaffection on the buyer rather than the seller? Or do you just get a good feeling from lashing out with an unfounded report at some guiltless third party whose only crime is to have had the misfortune of logging in to the same battle as you? And also, just out of curiosity: What do you report them for? Unsportsmanlike conduct? Being AFK? Misbehaviour in chat? Because I'm fairly certain that "Having bought a premium ship" is not among the available report categories. If you dislike having top tier premiums available for money, hey, I'm with you on that. I think it's bad for the game in general to have top tier ships available to players who are no more than five minutes into the first battle on the first day of ever playing the game. It's not fair to them, since it basically means that they get to pay a not inconsequential amount of money for the privilege of being thrashed to and beyond the point of humiliation and then sent back to port to wonder what in all the seven hells they did to deserve such a consummate spanking. Nor is it fair to the veteran players who have worked their way up the tiers over a period of months or years only to have to deal with the frustration of sharing the ballpark with a bunch of clueless first-day newbies whose only crime - again - is to have bought a ship that was put up for sale to them by Wargaming. The report system, for what it's worth, is there to deal with cases of deliberate misconduct. If it is used to harass people for merely playing the game with the tools provided, it is just one more reason for Wargaming to disregard player input entirely. Don't give them that reason.

I agree that we should have the option to turn off the container animation. When it comes to opening more than one container at a time, it would be reasonable to have this option as soon as there are two or more containers available. As it is, the all at once-option does not become available until there are three or more containers to open, which is just dumb. Yes, I get that this is probably deliberate on the part of WG as a subliminal incentive to make us go for the third container. Hint: It's not working...

Then I'm obviously wrong (again). Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for the bother!

Good thinking. I've had more than one "oops" moment when backing out of my own smoke in my Haida... obviously, I have to work on my "Haiding skills"...! I'll get my coat.

While on the subject of perma camos: I've been wondering why WG regularly provides perma camos for non-premium ships of tiers VIII and above, but more seldom for non-premium ships of middle and lower tiers. Why is that? I'd gladly pay money for nice perma camos for my favourite ships, irrespective of tier. For that matter, the special camos for the Graf Spee and the Warspite are among the best looking in the entire game. I'd also like to get my hands on that nice "Ocean Liner" special camo for the Normandie; the one that won the player design competition. This latter one is not available, though - I missed out on the grind to get it - and there seems to be an overall shortage of perma camos below tier VIII. Or am I missing something?

A quote from Sir Edward Grey? He was the British foreign secretary from 1905 to 1916, and this sounds exactly like something he would have said.

Isn't this what the South Carolina is for? I outfought one of those in my Mikasa, once...

That's a good attitude, Captain! The way you word it, I'm actually tempted to try these tubs out! But did I get it right, that none of these new German destroyers have hydro? Having a German destroyer - or cruiser, for that matter - without hydro, is rather like having an ice cream cone without the ice cream.

Again off-topic, but... what am I looking at, in the clip above? Was that a manned flight, or did they just launche an empty pick-up from the carrier's catapult? (And if so, why?)

The sad part is that for the longest time, 'Russian bias' wasn't really a thing in World of Warships. But now, with such fine additions to the game as the Smolensk and the very legendary commander Nikolay Kuznetsov? I think it is. [Sorry for going off-topic! Let's get back to the ZF-6!]

Thanks for all the good advice, mates!

It's interesting to read what you say here. I have been struggling, as of late, with a feeling that Wargaming operates under a policy somewhere along the lines of "the Germans can't be allowed to be especially good at anything useful". The recent nerfbat to battleship secondaries hasn't exactly mollified this sense of Götterdämmerung. On the other hand, and as I also admitted in a recent post, my personal feelings are not exactly a marker on which to calibrate reality. The German ship lines are still some of the most entertaining to play in World of Warships, and I for one am not about to toss my secondaries and join the BBCS (Battleship Border Camping Society). Maybe this is Wargaming's way of thinking as well; they feel reasonably sure that with all the Wehraboos out there, the Germans will never go completely out of fashion even with the addition of a new and somewhat underpowered ship line...?