Procrastes

The Dazzle skill does provide a valid choice for the second 4th-level DD skill, where before the Radio Location skill was the only practical thing to take. Right now you are forced to choose between two very strong second-choice skills, which provide different advantages and benefit rather different play styles. This - the introduction of added variety - is in itself a good thing. As for Dazzle being too strong, I think it is still far too early to say anything for certain. But with the proliferation of radar and long-range hydro - not to mention all those blasted planes - in the game these days, I'd say that destroyers could use another tool in their toolbox. I doubt that the Dazzle skill will prove to be unbalanced, and if WG nerfs it so that it only provides a 10 % bonus, I think it will cease to be a useful alternative to Radio Location.

Yes, and yes. And I would consider the Daring to be the stronger of those two, simply due to her versatility. Unless the Småland manages to a) trick the Daring to smoke up, and b) position herself so that she is able to radar-fire on the Daring without getting spotted, the Brit has an overall better toolbox to deal with all manner of situations.

I recently returned to the game after taking an AC Odyssey-induced break last summer, and - while taking out my brand new Småland destroyer for the first time - got some of those welcome back-gifts Captain Newman speaks about. I tried to take the central cap, and found one Halland and one Minotaur waiting for me... they gave me a quick pass to Davy Jones, I'll tell you that for free...!

Russian Carriers on the horizon? Whether we want them or not, it is probably only a matter of time. Based on in-game Russian ship characteristics so far, and some inspiration from real history, here's what I believe we can expect: Their rocket planes - Sturmoviks, obviously - will have huge health pools and super effective armour piercing rockets. (The Russian air force was generally rather big on rockets, and I can't imagine Wargaming allowing the Germans to be better than the Russians on anything with a real impact on the gameplay.) The planes will maybe not be all that fast and maneuverable, though. On the assumption that the rocket planes will have AP rockets, the bombers will most likely carry HE bombs with good fire-starting capabilities and good damage. The torpedo bombers will probably be the least strong plane category. The carrier itself will have a heal consumable and good armour, but bad concealment.

WG does have a rule - although it's probably more akin to a guideline, if you ask Captain Barbossa - to avoid directly nerfing premium ships. Premiums can however still be affected by more general changes to the game, with the most obvious example so far perhaps being the abolition of open water stealth firing. This change hit several premium ships rather hard; the Blyskawica in particular could probably be said to have never fully recovered. In spite of being a proud Blyskawica owner I approve of the removal of open water stealth fire, since this change was good for the game in general. Creating a whole new commander skill system would most certainly count as such a general change as would affect premiums as well as silver ships - and to be honest, I can hardly see how it could be otherwise. If certain single ships - premium or silver line - are found to be put at too much of a disadvantage by the new system, requisite changes or tweaks to those ships can always be applied later.

I know, right? And just to add insult to injury, they did mount the siren on to those high-altitude fighters that were somehow drafted into the dive-bombing capacity on the Graf Zeppelin.

Spare the CV, spoil the noob, eh? It does have a certain ring to it...

On Russian top tier cruisers, that is not bug, that is feature, Comrade! Perhaps slightly off-topic, but I have just been tossed out of the game twice, and there is a lot of rubber-banding. Connection issues or have some of the server hamsters died?

Please don't kamikaze? It's simply not fair to your team mates to suicide just because you don't like the match-up. For that matter, while going up against +2 tier ships can be an uphill battle, the rewards are better - and I can actually find it less stressful being the underdog. When you are top tier, you have something of an obligation to pull your weight. If you are bottom tier, you can sometimes slip under the radar and get a few blows in that no one expects. Also, being two tiers lower is thankfully nowhere near as difficult in World of Warships as it is in World of Tanks.

Just had another double-CV game - two CV:s on each team, that is - and that was every bit as exhilarating as usual. They should rename that game mode "Carriers and Victims". At tier IV it is kind of what one expects these days - which is a crying shame for those beginner players who are supposed to learn the game at that tier - but this was at tier VI. The double-CV game is a plague upon the earth.

An eminent idea, Captain Newman! Make the poll and I'll vote in it!

Nerfing secondary builds in general will be almost as detrimental to good BB gameplay as adding the 'Deadeye' skill - both will discourage battleships from closing in with the enemy and instead promote a camping playstyle. This is so obviously counter to what's good for the game that I'm tempted to go for the explanation put forth by Captain @principat121 in post #13 above, namely that Russian battleships don't have good secondaries so secondaries can't be good. But on the other hand, Russian battleships are generally designed to be better at close quarters than at long range, so I'm frankly kind of puzzled by how Wargaming might be thinking here. Nerfing German secondaries extra hard, though, goes perfectly well with the old tradition from World of Tanks to never allow the Germans to be especially good at anything in particular. So from that point of view, bashing their secondaries - i.e. their main strength, what sets them apart in in WoWs - makes a sad sort of sense, I guess. If it wasn't already apparent, I've just voted "no" in this poll.

From what I've gathered so far - mainly from some videos and a text by Flamu on the subject - I get the impression that the new commander skill system will have, as it is currently presented, roughly the following effects: a) Significant buffs to the one class that absolutely needs no buffs, namely carriers. b) General buffs to battleships, whether brawlers or snipers, with a special boost to the Russians and a resounding nerf to German secondary builds. c) Possible nerfs to cruiser survivability across the board (this was news to me, and - if true - begs the question why). d) Situational buffs to the survivability of destroyers, in the form of temporary accuracy penalties to incoming fire (it remains to be seen just how effective this will actually be). e) Percentage bonuses instead of fixed bonuses to skills that boost certain ship characteristics (such as turret rotation speed). f) Changes to the unique commanders, as their enhanced skills are adjusted - we still don't know how - to the new skill system. g) Improved usefulness of premium ships, since commanders will be able to be cross-trained for all ship classes and freely switched between premium ships. First a few particular comments. Having percentage bonuses instead of fixed bonuses for skills that boost such things as, for instance, turret rotation, has the effect of giving a bigger bonus to ships that are already strong in the given area (and thus less in need of a boost), and a lesser bonus to ships that are weak in said area (and thus in more need a a boost). Taking turret rotation as an example, this will provide a much bigger benefit to such ships as, say, the Kremlin, than to the Yamato. One wonders why this is thought to be a good idea. Nerfing German secondary builds seems uncalled for, in my opinion. No one has accused secondary-specced German ships of being overpowered, or even very efficient from a purely tactical point of view - they are simply fun to play. To take away that fun would go well in line with the old tradition from World of Tanks, to never allow the Germans to be especially good at anything in particular, but I can see no other reason to implement such a change. Commanders being able to be trained for all ship classes simultaneously seems to be a very good idea, since it will make both captain training and the purchase of premiums more worthwhile, with no disadvantage for anyone that I can see. The fact that you will not be able to switch commanders freely between normal tech tree ships is not something to grumble about in my opinion. Introducing such a change would effectively mean that you could get by with just two or three captains for each tech tree, which would be more trouble - in the form of constant captain-switching - than it would be worth. Having separate skill trees for the various ship classes also has the potential for making the skill system a lot more flexible and functional over time. It would allow for much more efficient fine-tuning to deal with issues of game balance as new features are introduced. So if Wargaming gets this right, I think we might be looking at a much better skill system in the future, once we are past the inevitable initial hurdles. On a more general note, I am very much aware of the fact that I do not, as yet, have anything like a full picture of the incoming changes. I have thus far mostly watched Flamu's videos on the subject, and although these are - as usual - very informative, I have found it advisable to not take anyone's opinions as gospel without double-checking the source. That said, he paints a rather bleak picture. A few years ago I wouldn't have let myself be bothered by any doomsday prophesies, but things have changed in the World of Warships. The last few years have seen the introduction of overly noob-friendly reworked carriers, real Russian bias (in the name of Smolensk, Kremlin, stealth radar and the unique(ly good) commander Kuznetsov), the Puerto Rico debacle, and - last but not least - the sale for money of a tier X premium Yamato together with the legendary upgrade. What further changes (I am tempted to say degradations) to the meta will follow when submarines are eventually shoe-horned into the game, is anyone's guess. I do not begrudge Wargaming making a good buck - quite the opposite, in fact, since I hope WoWs will continue to exist for a long time to come - but saying that they are currently prioritizing short-term gain at the cost of the long term health of the game, is merely stating the obvious as I see it. With this in mind, I am approaching the prospect of a new skill system with less enthusiasm than might have been the case two or three years ago. But I am willing - and hoping - to be convinced otherwise. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, fellow Captains!

The short answer would be yes. He will be worth it simply for the special "Will to Victory" talent, even if all the other enhancements were to be removed. "Wait and see", however, is probably the best advice until we know how the new skill system will work out in practice.

Post removed.

Good to know, thanks for telling me! I'm not sure I qualify as "particularly bad"; I rather tend to regard myself as being "barely competent". Exactly where that may place me on a larger scale is not something I have hitherto given much thought, and it is certainly nothing I have been anxious to display by way of my flag choice. I believe I shall continue flying the CBT flag, and let my actions show my mettle!

Sorry, but no, I don't. What stigma are you referring to?

I have the rather neat-looking Closed Beta Tester flag hoisted on all my ships. The fact that my wife has informed me that 'CBT' is the internationally accepted acronym for 'C0ck and Ball Torture', may have something to do with this decision.

Spin-off question: How do you earn the right to mount a second flag on your German ships?

It's funny how people experience the same ships so differently! My personal experience with the Pan-Europeans has been that the first really interesting ship is the tier VII, the Skåne, and from then on they just get better and better. They retain their weaknesses, but their strengths - heal, superduperfast long range death-of-a-thousand-cuts torpedoes, and good AA* - get more pronounced for each tier. Those of higher tiers can even hope to win a gunfight with another gunboat, thanks to the extreme rate of fire of their little popguns. The playstyle is very demanding, but also - if you get it right - both fun and rewarding. The lack of a smoke screen is less of a problem than one might think, since it promotes the very sort of mobile playstyle that they are built for. Their greatest weakness is the lack of alpha strike capability, and that is just something you have to learn to play around. Good observations! But I would say that you might perhaps be underestimating the heal just a little bit? The Pan-Europeans' heal is quite a bit more potent than, say, that of the British destroyers, and while this won't help in a fair fight against any of the Brits - a Daring, all else being equal, will eat a Halland for breakfast - you don't want to be getting into any fair fights to begin with. Avoid other destroyers unless they are already at a disadvantage. If caught out, run if you can and hope to bait them into making themselves targets for your allies. Then heal up and get back into the action with the hope for a chance to finish off a wounded opponent. And spam, spam, spam your fast torpedoes! * No ship in WoWs of this day and age has strong AA.

I would say it is definitely this. And I think Wargaming has made the correct choice here. Kamikaze attacks, while historical in a WW2 setting, represent an act of desperation on a national level. They have inspired much controversy, and will continue to to so in a way that more ordinary naval battle tactics - i.e., gunfire, torpedoes and such - will not. World of Warships is not a simulation, but a light-hearted arcade game set against a backdrop of iconic naval battles. The arcade element is accentuated by not having ship crews represented in the game, and I see this as a very nice and elegant design choice. It widens the gap between what is essentially a community of gamers having a good time together, and the grim reality that is actual war. Introducing a kamikaze game mechanic would risk narrowing that gap, and I for one can see no reason to do that. As for ships ramming each other, this was never - in the relevant era, at least - enacted on such a scale and in such a way as to inspire the kind of feelings that will be forever linked to acts of ritual suicide.* One ship ramming another is not the same thing as one person deliberately choosing death. Moreover, not having collision damage present as a game mechanic in World of Warships would be downright silly. * Yes, I am aware of the fate of HMS Glowworm. Again, this not quite the same thing as a kamikaze attack. Whether or not the starboard turn that led to the Glowworm ramming the Admiral Hipper was deliberate or accidental - and this is a matter of ongoing debate - the British destroyer did not sail under orders to sink herself. The ram happened as a result of how the engagement developed.

On the other hand, England was also one of the first states - at least in Europe - to institute a legal system which was actually not geared to put foreigners at an automatic disadvantage. The idea was that if foreigners felt they could rely on the protection of the English courts, even in a case against an Englishman, they would be more inclined to take their trade and other business to England. It worked, and English foreign trade prospered. Mind you, this was during the Middle Ages, before Brexit was a thing.

Veni, vidi, vaya con dios. The new arrivals in the ship shop - confirmed and rumoured - are not as exciting as I would have hoped. Paying an excessive amount of coal for the Flint would have been a fun option for Christmas, were it not for the fact that the new skill set that is about to go live after the holidays seem to lack an AFT skill for cruisers. This would limit the Flint - as well as her cousin, the long-suffering Atlanta - to a max range of about 11 km for the main guns. Ouch. With or without the additional help of a smoke screen, I can't help but to feel that both these ships are heading for extinction. The Z-44 seemed interesting until I saw that she lacks the Hydroacoustic search consumable. A German destroyer without a Hydroacoustic search consumable, is like a French destroyer without a speed boost - a sad and sidelined little individual. Sorry, Z-44, but it's true. As for the reputed return of the Kitakami, well... how do I put it? There seems to be a steadfast group of players making up the Kitakami Fan Club, although I am unsure of how many they are. Regardless of their numbers, I do not begrudge any of them their honest joy on hearing about the return of their darling meme torpedo cruiser. Having said this, however, please let me be blunt about my own opinion on this ship. Putting the Kitakami back in the game - at any tier and for any price - is a sign to herald the dominion of Mammon. Torpedo spammers are quite simply not good for the game, since they tend to promote an overly passive playstyle. Wargaming were quick to realize this shortly after the Kitakami was first introduced, and replaced her with the Atago. It is worth noting that they did not just remove the Kitakami from she shop, as they did with (for example) the Belfast - they removed her from the game. The only relevant factor I can think of that has changed since then, is WG:s vision for the future health of the game. The lack of interesting new arrivals won't mean that I will have nothing to strive for over the holidays, since I currently have my sights on the Småland. This little spinach-coloured hunter-killer is certainly overpriced at 2 million free xp, but the sudden deadline on her ship shop availability worked exactly as intended - I don't think I will take the risk of losing out on the chance of ever getting her. And she does have her own special brand of top-tier DD gameplay to offer, which means that those 2 million free xp will at least be contributing to diversifying my game. To me, that is xp well spent. Hope to see you all on the seven virtual seas this holiday season!

I just watched Flamu's "new skill system v2" video to the finish. With the proper reservations for the inadvisability to base one's own opinion entirely on one single video, here's my initial five cents. A lot of the new skills that give boosts to in-game characteristics - such as turret rotation speed, for instance - now seem to give a percentage bonus instead of a fixed boost. This means that ships who are already strong in the relevant area, and thus in less need of a bonus, will get a big boost, while ships that are weak in that area, and thus in more need of the bonus, will get a commensurately lesser boost. I believe it was Matthew (25:29) who said it best: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." Incidentally, this Bible verse also goes well with another initial impression of the reworked skill system, namely that its main benefactors would seem to be CVs and Russian battleships. And this leads me to the next question: What is the reason for introducing a new skill system, anyway? The one we have works well enough, so why rock the boat? There will of course be a surge of free xp/doubloon expenditure as every sock monkey out there (including me) pushes his or her top captains up to 21 points, but that will be a temporary effect and hardly worth the entire overhaul. I am starting to give some credence to the theory that the main aim is to finally give the community something other than the reworked carriers to go ballistic about...

Ok, I'll bite - I don't get that reference. Please elucidate me; what am I missing here?