Procrastes

Five points: 1. Double CV games are a plague upon the sea. They should not exist, no matter what the consequences for CV queuing times. I don't especially wish for CV players to have inordinately long queuing times, but having two or more reworked CV:s on each team in a battle is simply not fun for anyone other than (possibly) the CV:s. 2. Having Random battles without CV:s would be great. Having Random battles with actually balanced CV:s would be even better, but Wargaming has made it plain that this would go against their current business interests. For fairness sake, there should still be a Carriers & Prey mode for those of a masochistic bent who actually enjoy playing against unbalanced CV:s. 3. For any CV players who share this masochistic bent, there should also be a special CV vs. CV mode. Equality for all. 4. We should not let our justified frustration with an intentionally unbalanced ship class spill over on our interactions with CV players. No one should be punished for simply playing the game with the tools provided for it. Hate the CV, love the CV player, to quote. 5. This thread will likely be closed soon. There is an ongoing main CV thread for the playerbase to let off steam. A good day to you all!

I had forgotten about the USS Texas. Yeah, she's got some badass AA punch, that one. Unlike the Orion, though, she will run into tier VI CV:s as well - so the question is, which one of these ladies is the most consistent CV bane...?

They nerfed some of her characteristics, I'm unsure which ones and how much. I think it had to do with the accuracy of her main guns, which used to be better. Whatever they did, she is still a damn strong ship - probably the best and most versatile battleship of her tier. Edited: DFens_666 beat me to the punch, but it seems I was right - it had to to with the dispersion. Thanks, Captain DFens!

If you are pining for a Dreadnought Turkey Shoot, Captain @ManuelElMenthol, sail out for a cruise in the HMS Orion. Her ability to make confetti out of tier IV carrier planes - the only ones she will ever encounter - is astounding bordering on the filthy. If you absolutely, definitely have to plug every mother[edited] plane of the Belle Époque, the Orion is the ship for you - accept no substitute!

They have that button in World of Tanks; I think it's the "2" key...? (I don't want that button in World of Warships.)

This is very true. I am - at best - barely competent at this game, and so my Smolensk stats are nothing to write home about. But in the hands of someone who can actually play her to her strengths... sheesh. I have seen those replays, and they ain't pretty. However: A thing about op ships that tends to stand out - and which has in fact been used as a definition of the very meaning of the much debated term "overpowered"* - is that they seldom tend to underperform, even in the hands of a potato like myself. When I sail out in the Smolensk - or, to take another infamously op ship - the Belfast, I rarely have bad games. Unless I completely mess things up and die in the second minute of the game, I usually come away with having dealt a fair bit of damage and acquitted myself well enough to have been awarded with a fair chunk of xp. This has not seldom been the case even in battles where I have made rather dubious tactical choices. Or to put it another way: Even if I do potato in the Smolensk or the Belfast, the post-battle stats don't necessarily show it. * I believe the suggested definition was something along these lines: "An overpowered ship is a ship which even a mediocre player is able to consistently do well in." As definitions go, this is one of the better in my opinion. It wasn't made by me, but it was made by someone on this forum a couple of years ago.

They are generally rather well armoured, or at least that is my impression so far. I've played a very limited number of battles with the new Italian battleships, mind you, so I cant say that I speak with much authority on the matter. I happen to own the Giulio Cesare and the Roma as well. Of those two, the Roma is tough as an old boot as long as you keep a decent angle. The GC is a bit more vulnerable, but unless you show broadside you can rely to tank a goodly amount of damage in her as well. (And of course the GC is seriously op at tier V, but that's another matter.) Besides the debatable SAP ammunition, I'd say that good armour, good turret traverse and dashing good looks seem to be the main trademarks for the Italian battleships! Edited: As Captain @ColonelPete quite rightly points out in the post below, Italian battleships are also fairly nimble and maneuverable. I would add that the Roma and the Giulio Cesare have very good concealment values as well. I don't know if this trait spills over on the new silver line, though.

If I got my history right, wasn't the main problem Mussolini had with his battleships that he didn't have much oil to spare to get them moving? I thought they were otherwise quite nicely built, apart from the slight disadvantage of having no radar of course.* As for those tubs getting their arses handed to them by the Royal Navy on the few occasions when they did make a sortie, I can't really judge them too harshly for that. Better navies than the Regia Marina have gotten their arses handed to them by the Royal Navy. Gorgeous ships, though... * This proved to be a bit of a problem for the Italians during the night battle of Cape Matapan, which is a good contender for being the most one-sided conflict in naval history. See link below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan

This just about sums the Andrea Doria up, I think.

Captain @SodaBubbles, I will commend you for your nuanced approach to this discussion, if nothing else. We obviously have differing opinions, but it is good to see that we can nevertheless have a civil debate about it. Best of luck with your future engagements, in World of Warships or otherwise!

Non-participation is certainly an option. What it means, though, is to not participate - or, in WoWs terms, to refrain from joining a battle to begin with. Joining a battle and then quitting without playing through to the end because one doesn't like the match-up (or for whatever other reason), however, is not "non-participation" - it's, for lack of a better word, "quitting". And that is against the rules of the game. Quitting in a Brawl because one doesn't like the match-up is no different in principle from quitting in a normal Random battle. If that were to be accepted behaviour, I'm sure that many players would opt out of any battle with CV:s in it, because many of us feel (quite reasonably, I might add) that playing against CV:s is frustrating. But we still play to our best effort even when facing off against a carrier, because to do otherwise would be to let the other players down - both those in your own team and those of your opponent's. We play this game in order to have fun - or at least, that is why I do it - and winning by walkover is no fun at all. If you want to show your disaffection with the current Brawl season by non-participation, then by all means go ahead and don't play it. But if you do join a Brawl, you do so with a moral and factual obligation to play through to the end. Quitting a battle is not a slap in the face of Wargaming, it's a discourtesy to the other player.

That's the best argument I've heard so far for actually getting the ship. It can be used to warn against impending collisions. With ephemeral efficiency, I must admit, but still. Now and then I also tend to sound the horn when the team is about to conclude a victorious battle.

Considering this, I'd guess that British destroyers - with their numerous charges of short smokes - should be ideal against CV:s? Especially since they can activate their hydro, and thus protect themselves in some measure against torpedoes even inside the smoke?

A friendly, neighbourhood Brawl - how nice to hear! Now I shall definitely have to try this out. I suppose that if I make one of my notorious misplays, this will be less offensive to the other players if there's only one of them and that one is on the other team...?

I guess smoking up in a 1 vs 1 might theoretically work for a Perth, which has its own little Walrus spotter plane. And I suppose a destroyer with hydro or radar could make use of its own smoke, with good timing and a bit of luck. Otherwise, not hardly...

If you join a game, you do so with a commitment - whether written or implied - to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, then don't join the game. If you do join the game, you play it to the end to the best of your ability, and then you are free to choose whether to play it again or not. But - and since you asked - to just jump out of an ongoing battle in a game like World of Warships simply because you happen to dislike the match-up, is a bit of a shitty thing to do. It's bad manners in normal Random battles, and it's bad manners in a Brawl. I, too, play this game in order to have fun. And I, too, balance my gaming escapades with my commitment to work and family. I have been in a lot of battles in World of Warships where the odds were bad and the outcome seemed to be a foregone conclusion. And I have always played through to the end and to the best of my ability - because to do otherwise would have been to ruin the fun for every other player in that battle. Seeing an AFK ship is always a downer no matter which team it belongs to, since its loss can't fail but to make the battle less interesting. Having your opponent deliberately quit on you when you are only two players in the game to begin with, would obviously be even more detrimental to the game experience. I don't post on this forum in order to toss blame around. But I would urge you to not deliberately quit a battle once you've joined, no matter how dismayed you may be by the match-up. In return I promise to act the same way towards you or anyone else I happen to be matched up against. Does that sound like a fair deal? Best of luck with your future battles, whichever game mode you may choose!

How do you counter the Tirptiz's torpedoes? Do you just keep your distance and kite away from her, or what?

It is good to see that carriers can bring happiness to the world.

The T-61 is actually my favourite ship of the whole game, and has been for a long time now. She forces me to play smart, and then she rewards me for it. Much like my wife does, now that I think of it.

...which is exactly why I bought the USS Wichita once upon a time. As for the current item on sale... I do so appreciate the opportunity to try out any new gimmicks on mid-tier ships first, so I won't have to fork out for a tier X special ship only to then find that the gimmick in question doesn't fit my personal play style. Paolo Emilio seems like a heap of fun, but I seriously doubt that I will ever amass the resources necessary to get her. A "pocket Emilio" at tier VI would have been nice, and if she's had SAP shells as well I wouldn't have minded the long reload on her guns (which is otherwise pretty much a no-no for me when it comes to destroyers). All in all, I'm just not sure if I will get the Leone or not. On the other hand, tier VI destroyer gameplay is pretty much where I thrive. So II will keep my ear to the ground and hope for some more positive reviews that will give me the excuse I need...!

Ok... ...you're absolutely right... ...I most defintely and empathically don't want DD-killing SAP shells on any battleship... ...what the deuce could I have been thinking?!! Thanks for setting the matter straight, fellas!

I agree. I see how Wargaming would do this in order to tickle the grind instincts of their players, but on me the effect is the exact opposite. If I find myself unable to make a free choice from the beginning I will usually just shrug my shoulders, play as I normally would and take whatever token content (pun intended) may come my way.

But, I thought Italian cruiser SAP was supposed to be uniquely deadly against destroyers? If it is, why would battleship SAP be any different? Being a DD main I suppose I shouldn't complain about having to worry less about Italian battleships. But I figured having access to a DD-hammer would be a fair trade-off for the Italian battleships if they had no access to regular HE shells. Now i feel almost sorry for them...!

It is? Why?

The Italian token drops are quite generous as token drops go, I'd say. I've found the SAP shells to be quite a nice ammunition alternative for battleships. With SAP in the chamber you can rely on putting real hurt on any cruiser or destroyer you encounter, and it make a good dent in the superstructure on other battleships as well. Meanwhile you don't really miss the lack of HE since you don't rely on setting fires to do the big damage numbers anyway, and unlike the Italian cruisers you don't get punished with a glacial reload on the SAP-equipped battleships. With the above in mind, I'm collecting tokens with the aim of getting at least to the tier VI Andrea Doria. I figure she might make a nice addition to Operations and I could probably use having another tier VI Italian battleship around for randoms. There is nothing wrong with the Comte di Cavour, but even with her thirteen (13!) SAP rifles she can't hold a candle to the Giulio Cesare at tier V.