Procrastes

The Haida, a.k.a. "the fightingest ship in the Royal Canadian Navy", respectfully requests to be counted among those few exceptions. The Gadjah Mada and the Jervis (as mentioned by Captain Bindolaf Werebande in post 56 above) would also care to join the club!

"Never bother with missions that you can't complete by playing as usual, at your usual pace." Not quite Confucius, perhaps, but at 48 it's what I've got, so I'll take it.

I tend to regard the Black torpedoes as some kind of guided float mines, and use them accordingly. They have a talent for turning up like the Spanish Inquisition; unexpectedly as well as painfully.

Ok, I believe you. I don't have either of those two ships in question, but I'll still try to provide a reply in more general terms. Firstly, it's an old truth in this game that the same ship can work very differently for different players. It's more than just a question of mechanical statistics such as dispersion or armour scheme, it's a matter of how well a certain ship fits your own playstyle. For example, I know full well that the Kléber is an excellent ship in the right hands, but I just can't seem to make her work (yet). It's got nothing to do with the ship; it's just me. Secondly, and with regards to your comment about how this was your "initial impression after a few battles": Give it time. It took me at least thirty to forty battles in the Tirpitz before I even began to get the hang of how to make the most out of her strengths, while at the same time compensating for her weaknesses. Before you get at least that far with a new ship, any kind of first impression is really just that. Cheers! P.S. What is round in the ends, and high in the middle? :)

Until nothing but her stunning good looks remain, most likely. Or, with the (slightly adapted) immortal words of Belloq from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark': "There is nothing you have, Dr Jones, that I cannot take away."

Strong, your quote lore is.

Unfortunately, those of us who enjoy the occasional Operation seem to in the minority - or at least too few for Wargaming to deem it worth their while to polish up and properly maintain the Operations game mode. Which is their decision to make, of course, but I for one would welcome some more Operations into the game. As for submarines, they should only ever appear in PvE scenarios, if at all. They will not bring balance to the game.

How right you are! Many years ago on this very forum, I opened a thread titled "Taking a Bullet for your Team", where I expounded on when and how to take risks and make sacrifices in order to work towards a victory. On the assumption that damage to one's ship does not, in fact, carry over into the real world - a fact that a large part of the player base seems puzzlingly ignorant of, judging by their in-game actions - I based my own reasoning around the tenet that one should avoid taking unnecessary damage to one's ship. As for what would inversely constitute useful damage - if I may call it that - I think most of us would agree that there are many situations when taking some damage, or even being sunk, can help secure a victory for the team. So when I formulated my above post - the one you quoted - I did indeed fiddle with some alternative catch phrases. The short and snappy "Don't die in vain" came to mind, as did the more prosaic "Don't die needlessly". With the vague ambition of setting down the full philosophy, I thought about the somewhat more cumbersome "Don't die unless your death represents a useful sacrifice which will, although being somewhat inconvenient for your own personal game experience at this time, advance your team's chance of ultimately winning the battle". The problem was, none of these has the elegance of that golden piece of advice I received in the battle chat all those years ago: "Don't die." This simple phrase has stayed with me ever since. It contains both a highly useful piece of advice from the sender, and a friendly wish for the continued well-being of the receiver. I've taken it to heart - and if it were up to me, I would propose that it be added to the list of quick-command messages that is available in the battle chat.

You're talking about the Elbing, right? While the axiom that "the Germans can't be allowed to be especially good at anything in particular" is perhaps not completely unfounded in a WoWs context, it should be borne in mind that the Elbing is still - as far as I know - a Work In Progress. So I'm holding out hope in that particular quarter as well, although I have heard precious little to recommend her graces so far.

There, this just about nails it. There's a ton of good advice in this thread, by players whose abilities far outstrip mine own. I have nothing of substance to add to what they have already said. But the single best piece of advice that I ever got as a DD player, is the simple admonition, "Don't die."

Now I am going to say something positive: In view of the Haida - which is in my opinion one of the most unique and also best balanced premium ships in the game - I believe there is an excellent chance that Wargaming will be able to also balance the Vampire II. Here's to hope!

You are correct, of course. I am not trying to play the role of the gloomsday prophet - rather, I have long been advocating a "benefit of the doubt" approach to Wargaming and their business decisions. But they don't always make it easy for me.

Well, the Puerto Rico counts as "sold for money" in my book. In fact, that whole sorry Puerto Rico debacle marks the low point - so far - for Wargaming EU and their business ethics. I hope they won't backslide, as there are obviously forces for good working in the company as well.

That's good to hear. I kinda assumed the opposite, so I guess I owe Wargaming an apology. (Sorry, WG!) While on the subject of my personal misconceptions: They have sold one or two tier X cruisers for money, right? Or am I wrong about that as well? (I hope I am!)

I thought that FD Roosevelt thing was sold for money? But maybe I'm wrong about that; it would be a good thing if I was. Although even if that were to be the case, I'd bet it's only a matter of time.

For some reason, Wargaming seems disinclined to sell tier X destroyers for money. Tier X carriers? [Edited: No. Not yet.] Tier X cruisers? Hell yeah, and let's sell them with a combination of psychological mind tricks (sunk cost fallacy and fear of missing out) while we're at it! Tier X battleships? You bet, and let's toss in a legendary module for even more dough to sweeten the deal! Tier X destroyers? Whoa, man - that's crazy talk! Those tubs will only be available for steel or free xp, or else safely secured behind impossible grindwalls. I'm not lobbying for expanding the venue of tier X money boats, since having top tier ships available for money is not good for the game. What's good for the game and what's good for Wargaming are obviously two different things, though, and striving for a balanced game experience has long been out of fashion. I'm not going to pretend to know how great minds work.

Yet another ship with stealth radar, is yet another instance of Wargaming prioritizing short term financial gain to the long term health of the game. Giving the Tiger 59 a smoke screen on top of that is merely adding insult to injury, although I suppose it could be used as a counter argument to the increasingly well-founded accusations of Russian bias. This is a sad trend we see, and it's getting worse.

I agree! But both have their uses, that's all I'm saying.

There are downsides as well as upsides with the creepy-crawling smoke, just as you say. I kinda like how it lets you reposition and bring the smoke with you, but it's true that it also reveals your location to everyone. The normal British smoke is probably better from a tactical perspective.

The smoke will last a huge time, especially with the special module. Even so, you may be right. I certainly hope they are not planning to power creep the Daring!

I am hoping for 2 000 0000 free xp.* That at least lies within the scope of what I might possibly achieve... unless WG decides to remove her six months after she's been released due to "popularity issues" and "server overflow". (Yes, Småland, I am looking at you...!) * That is, I would have hoped for 1 500 000 free xp. But after having had to fork over two million for the Småland, I don't expect the price tag to drop for future purchases.

I'd say you are probably spot on. Whether this reasoning will bear out balance-wise is something we shall have to wait and see, I guess. I am also wondering what the reload on those torpedoes will be. The Cossack and the Haida both have merely the one torp launcher, but the reload on the Cossack torps is so quick that she feels the lack of an extra launcher far less than does the Haida. This is what balances the Haida out, in my opinion, since if she had a torpedo armament that was even close to being on par with those of her peers, she'd probably be straight off overpowered. As it is, she just doesn't have the alpha strike capability - and that's fine, considering how powerful she is in every other way that counts. Another question that wasn't answered in Flamu's video was the duration of the Hydro (or if it was, I missed it). That is quite a relevant factor, since one thing that adds to the Haida legend is how she can keep her smoke and hydro just rolling on and on and on. With a 5 km range, it stands to reason that the hydro of the Vampire II would have a more "ordinary" duration. But who knows what weird new gimmicks lurk within the heart of Wargaming? As far I can see, the Vampire II seems to be a tier X Haida with a hunter-killer hydro rather than one for purely self-defense purposes. But, if Wargaming plans to give her a long duration 5 km hydro, and a commensurately short torpedo reload to boot... then we might be looking forward to something quite a bit different?

I certainly have the Radio Location skill on my Kitakaze captain! She's a knife fighter and no mistake, even though her concealment was lately nerfed to 6.1. The fact that she carries enough fire power to take on a cruiser doesn't mean she won't typically have to deal with destroyers as well, and without hydro the RL skill is the best option for getting the drop on those. I don't have the Harugumo, but from your words I guess she plays more like the Kléber?

My main use for the Radio Location skill is in DD vs. DD fights, either to hunt enemy destroyers or to avoid them as the situation demands. It is also hugely useful for targeting smoked-up ships with torpedoes inside their own smoke. Apart from this I use the skill for the occasional speculative torpedo launch at unspotted targets in my Halland and Black, but that is more of a fringe benefit. In the Kléber, however, destroyers are not my main targets, and her torpedo armament is strictly for yolo death rushes or a last ditch defense measure if everything goes snafu. The Radio Location skill, while certainly not a bad thing to have in any ship, is thus less useful in the Kléber than in any of my other destroyers - or at least that is how I have been reasoning so far. It should be said that I am not a very good Kléber captain. So I am probably not the best authority when it comes to Kléber skill builds. I am, however, moderately competent at handling myself in a "normal" gunboat destroyer - and in such a one, the Radio Location skill is a great thing to have, since it provides a wealth of useful information throughout the battle.

I have now perused the "899 Begone Brigade" and "Mr Clear Sky" videos from last year. I watched them while eating my lunch cereal, which may have been a mistake as it was a long time ago since I laughed that hard at anything. Having watched the show through to its conclusion (and wiped my keyboard clean of milk and cereal), I have a few observations to make. The most relevant provision in the Wargaming EULA (End User Licence Agreement) in this case should be section 3.03, which states that "Insults, personal attacks, abuse, or harassment are not tolerated on any level." I think we can all agree that this is a reasonable and necessary rule to have in any community, whether online or irl. I think we can also all agree that attacks on ships in the game are not typically to be regarded as "personal attacks, abuse and harassment" in this context. Otherwise it would be impossible to play the game without breaking the EULA. With this in mind, it is my opinion that it should not be considered as being against the EULA rules for players to form a division with the explicit intention of taking down enemy CV:s, and then for them to pursue that goal in any game where there are CV:s present. In doing this, they are merely using the tools provided for them in order to accomplish a tactical goal with the aim of ultimately winning the battle. Taking down the enemy CV is akin to taking out the Wizard first in a Dungeons & Dragons encounter; it's obviously sound tactics and everyone (including the Wizard) would agree to that with no hard feelings. You go for the most dangerous target first. Another question is whether posting texts or videos depicting this kind of gameplay, with or without the explicit aim to promote "CV-hunting", would be against the rules. I would argue that texts and videos promoting various forms of gameplay - including useful counterplay tactics to overcome in-game challenges - have been a part of the WoWs experience from the very beginning. It could even be said to be a vital part of the community, and one of many ways through which we all learn how to become better players. I for one would not look askance at useful tips on how to handle an oncoming CV attack (above and beyond the tried and tested "just dodge" option, that is). I suppose it could be argued that promoting explicit CV-hunting tactics is just another way of promoting toxicity towards CV players. I certainly don't want to endorse that - but I would counter-argue that by this logic, then many or perhaps even most videos depicting CV gameplay could be considered to promote toxicity towards non-CV players. The extant animosity towards CV:s stems ultimately from Wargaming's policy of coddling them to the point of having created what is widely accepted to be an altogether unbalanced class within the game. Player reactions, such as those depicted in the "899 Begone Brigade" and "Mr Clear Sky" videos, are thus an altogether foreseeable effect of Wargaming's own decisions. If Wargaming wants to lessen the animosity towards CV:s - which is a most laudable aim - then their first step should be to adjust the CV mechanics and balance the CV class in order to make it equal to the other ship classes. If they won't do this - and it seems pretty clear that they have no such intentions at the moment - then, threatening or otherwise pressuring players who react to this unbalance comes across as nothing short of hypocrisy.