Procrastes

Psychological warfare... I like it!

You use Radio Location on the Warspite? Whatever for? Do you use it to anticipate torpedoes from stealth-upped destroyers, or do you actually chase down and bag said destroyers? Now that is one boat-chase I'd like to see on film...!

Wargaming has, of late, adopted a very simple method for determining nerfs and buffs. If Flamu reviews a German ship and likes it, it is regarded as being op and therefore nerfed. If he reviews a Russian ship and likes it, it is regarded as being too weak and it is consequently buffed. Alright, so I'm joking here. Kinda sorta...

The La Galissonnière is by most accounts an excellent ship, and I don't doubt that she can perform well in operations. Personally, I can recommend her premium sister De Grasse, which lacks the reload booster but enjoys a better "normal" dpm as well as a cute little float plane fighter. (She's also much easier to spell, which gives an advantage in forum discussions.) The Algérie is an overall decent ship, but not ideal for the Narai operation. The distances involved are too small to let her take full advantage of her long-range kiting skills, and she's not at her best when surrounded by enemies at close range. If I want to set things on fire in Narai I set out in either the Boise/Nueve de Julio (which lacks torpedoes but has a superheal and much better dpm), or the Atlanta (which has torpedoes and also boasts of a radar). But the best cruiser pick for Narai, in my opinion, is the Fiji. Her guns make mincemeat out of the opposition she faces there, and she has smoke, hydro, torpedoes and a heal. In this operation, at least, she outperforms all competition with an almost insulting ease.

I thought that the London, with her smoke screen, would be more useful than she actually is in operations. The problem is, that she is very frequently so close to enemy ships that her gun bloom reveals her position in the smoke whenever she opens fire. That is one drawback of being a total noob having large-caliber guns on a smoke ship, I guess. The Devonshire has no smoke, but better heal and also - I believe - better maneuverability.

I agree. An increased element of uncertainty in this regard is only going to be another source of frustration for the players. Historically realistic torpedoes would be horribly dysfunctional in a fast-paced PvP arcade game like World of Warships. For a ship like, say, the Gearing, and taken at face value, it would mean having only a single set of ten torpedoes to fire during an entire battle, and having all of them statistically miss the target altogether - but with even one single hit very likely sinking the target outright.* I can think of more entertaining ways to drive myself insane than to sail out in a destroyer under those auspices. * All right, maybe not outright. A battleship or a cruiser would probably rather get its engines and electrical systems knocked out and be unable to do anything except slowly drift to a halt and then spend anything between two to sixteen hours throwing wave after wave of its unhappy crew members into fighting the unstoppable leak and a few unquenchable fires before going to the bottom in a maelstrom of burning oil and hungry sharks. I might watch the animation, but I'd probably fast-forward to the end and avoid zooming in on the more visceral bits. I doubt that it would be a hit in World of Warships, PG-wise or from a gamer perspective.

That is interesting. I would have thought that the guns of the Västerås would be to weak to allow her to perform well in operations, even with the admittedly hugely useful benefit of a heal. And I have also been somewhat hesitant as to how effective her torpedoes would be against enemies who are constantly being tipped off by the computer whenever someone launches torps their way. I guess I must give her a try in Killer Whale! Then again, if one sails out in the company of a cruiser - any cruiser - the bots will just target that one to the exclusion of all else!

The Perth is a lovely little ship, and she can do very well in operations. But I think that her wonderful mobility-in-stealth-and-still-able-to-spot-while-invulnerable-to-torpedoes, that comes with her moving smoke + spotter plane + hydro, is probably more useful when outplaying other players in random battles than when dealing with bots?

I am not saying you are wrong about this. A destroyer is expected to scout, contest caps and perform delaying actions - and preferably hunt down enemy destroyers at the same time, now there's a good chap! Not getting chewed out by one's allies for only doing one's best, is really the least one can ask. I didn't mean to imply that you were looking for an easy game; sorry if it came across that way! But I will stand by my position, that the one doing team damage is ultimately wholly and fully responsible for the result of his or her actions in that regard. While I personally will certainly try to avoid sailing in the way of my allies, there is a clear responsibility in the game to do your reasonable best in order to avoid damaging your team mates. If that means that you have to forgo a golden opportunity to attack an enemy, then so be it. Taking a deliberate risk of hitting an ally is just another way of gambling with you team mate's hit points - and that, as I see it, is simply not fair.

I suspect that if there was such a quick-command, there would be a lot of players who would interpret it to mean that it's ok to launch torpedoes with the risk of hitting allies, just as long as you send an F-key warning in the chat. In other words, having access to such a quick-command might even encourage bad gameplay. All players can benefit from paying attention to the mini-map. In the situation we are talking about here, the mini-map is just one tool out of several that can and should be used by the one who is launching torpedoes, in order to avoid the risk of hitting his allies. Griefing of that kind can certainly occur. However, I believe it to be a rare thing in World of Warships, maybe partly due to the fact that it is actually somewhat tricky to pull off. It is far easier to deliberately block someone in World of Tanks, for instance, where you can pin them against walls or push them into lakes and whatnot. I have played WoWs for more than five years now, and I can't recall having experienced or witnessed acts of deliberate blocking more than perhaps once or twice. I have never seen anyone deliberately blocking someone else's torpedo aim; or if I did, I didn't notice. I'd guess that it would be fairly tricky to pull that sort of stuff off as well, given that you can't actually see the torpedo aiming lines of other players. True enough - but ideally, you should only have to worry about torpedoes being directed at you from enemy ships. In conclusion: What you have done in your post, Captain @Dutchy_2019, is to list but a few of those things that make it such a challenge to be a good destroyer captain in the World of Warships. You must be constantly vigilant, alert not only to the risk of drawing fire from your enemies, but also to the risk of accidentally harming your allies. You must be ready, at a moment's notice, not only to spot an opportunity to attack an enemy, but also to immediately determine whether or not that attack might risk ending up hitting a team member. Sometimes you must do this at the same time as you are dodging incoming fire from several enemies, while simultaneously navigating the treacherous waters of a shallow archipelago. No one said any of this would be easy. But it can be a lot of fun - and anyway, if you are looking for soft and easy, then perhaps you shouldn't join the ranks of the Destroyermen? I hope you stay among us. We will need good destroyer captains in the future, to battle the wily hordes of deep-dwelling Submariners! Best of luck in your future battles, Captain!

Funny thing is, it can. It was only a few weeks ago that I read, on my post battle screen, a notification for team damage - I had apparently shot down one (1) friendly aircraft. I admit that I was a bit mystified. There was no more information to be had, however, and my current theory is that my AA crews had simply shot down my own fighter plane. There has been a certain amount of unsound competition going on between the AA crews and the float plane pilots, and the mood in the mess was tense that night... still, I suspect that I shall never know for sure what went down.* One of the many unsolved mysteries of the sea? ... Jokes aside, this actually happened - I apparently shot down a friendly aircraft. And I know that it has happened to others as well; there was a thread about it on this forum not long ago. You obviously can't deliberately target friendly aircraft, so I believe it can only occur when your AA is firing at enemy planes and one or more friendly aircraft happen to also be in the airspace covered by your AA umbrella. It may even be some kind of bug for all I know. * Except for the plane, that is.

A few days ago, when I was out in my Daring, there was this Zao that kept clicking my square on the mini-map. He very obviously thought I should be more vigilant and active in my scouting duties, but it was less obvious what exactly he thought that I ought to do. There was at least one Des Moines hidden behind a peninsula up to the north, and while I would have like nothing better than to give my team a good firing solution on him, he'd know I was there as soon as he was spotted, and then he would just radar me and blast me off the face of the ocean. So I felt obliged to move ahead with a least some measure of caution, and see to it that I had a good escape route ready. As i was sneaking ahead, zig-zagging between islands and hoping to get a bead on the Des Moines - preferably without running nose first into another enemy cruiser that had also been spotted nearby - the Zao kept clicking me and clicking me and clicking me. Finally I wrote back in chat, "What do you want me to do?" That prompted him to shoot me - not once, but twice. There were no enemy ships anywhere near, and it was clearly deliberate team damage. He immediately turned pink, so this was by no means his first such instance - he'd been doing this before. I don't doubt that he will do it again. Players like him - and yes, I do suspect that I am using the correct gender form, here - are thankfully rare, and I hope that I shall be able to play many more games without ending up on his team ever again. I certainly won't be hearing anything from him, since he is currently, together with a few like-minded individuals, taking up a very well deserved position on my personal in-game Blacklist.

The Leander and the Devonshire are both good cruiser picks for most operations, since their hydro and heal - and smoke for the Leander - give them versatility as well as added survivability. The Graf Spee is a neat combination of cruiser and battleship characteristics, if you like her unique playstyle. She comes with a lot of extra tankiness (for a cruiser), but with a somewhat randomly performing main battery. If you prefer battleships, I've found the Warspite to be a good pick. Or you could go for the in my opinion somewhat underestimated Prinz Eitel Friedrich, if you prefer speed over power. Destroyers are generally less than ideal for most operations, mainly due to their low continuous alpha damage output. But if you want to play a destroyer, I'd say that the Aigle is a good pick - she's almost a light cruiser anyway, and her speed and torpedoes give her an edge when it comes to wrapping up the endgame. The Ark Royal is a good carrier for operations, with her torpedo bombers being especially apt at delivering a steady amount of damage to those oh-so-predictable bot ships. But the tier VI Japanese carrier, the Ryujo, isn't bad either, with her faster planes and heavier torpedoes. Edited: I have to tag on tog Captain @Randschwimmer in post #10 below - the Nürnberg is also great for operations. Her fast-firing guns, with that powerful German AP, can be devastating to those broadside-sailing bot ships!

A simple truth about friendly torpedoes 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. About these so-called torpedo griefers I have never seen them - but, like Bigfoot, that doesn't prove they don't exist. What I have seen, on a number of occasions, is people getting hit by friendly torpedoes launched from second line. One of these occasions that comes to mind here, on the subject of griefing, is when I was driving my Kongo battleship, and got into a close-quarters scrap with two enemy Kongos. Considering the odds I might have opted for a tactical retreat, but as there was a friendly Minekaze nearby, who was also targeting those two enemy battleships, I felt reasonably confident about pressing the attack. I should have made the retreat. I managed to dodge the first spread of torpedoes from my gallant Minekaze ally, although this put my turrets out of aim and so hindered my main guns from firing at the enemy. None of those torpedoes hit either one of the enemy battleships. I managed to dodge all but one of the next spread of torpedoes from my gallant Minekaze ally, but that torpedo - along with the continuous fire from the two enemy Kongos - was more than enough to send me to the bottom. At least one of the remaining torpedoes of that spread actually did hit an enemy after having passed me by, but somehow this failed to cheer me up overmuch. I confess that I was a bit miffed at this time. I even wrote something along the lines of "friendly torpedoes for the win", in the chat. I really shouldn't have done so, I know, it was pretty pointless - but I didn't name and shame anyone either. My gallant Minekaze ally had a total meltdown in the chat. He wrote a long diatribe about me first hanging back from the battle, and then, with malicious intent, deliberately throwing myself in front of his torpedoes. - Me: "Son, this is a Kongo class battleship. It can't 'throw itself' anywhere, no more than a hippopotamus could dance the Nutcracker Suite - that sort of stuff only works on Disney." - He: "No you stupid BB driver blah blah blah uninstall game blah blah." This is my main personal experience concerning the torpedo griefing phenomena. If it exists at all, it does so only because it is made possible by players who launch torpedoes from second line. Suggestion for a cautionary text, to be applied on every torpedo before it leaves the munitions factory: "FRIENDLY TORPEDOES CAN CAUSE FLOODING! STOP SINKING YOU ALLIES!" *I write "kind of", since this is an arcade war game and friendly fire is a tactical element of the game. Throwing rocks at people in real life is criminal assault.

A nice and constructive post, Captain @Dave_Dare! I took the liberty of quoting some of the main parts of what you wrote, which I'd like to comment upon further. Having submarines that can sink other ship classes without being sunk by them in return, would obviously be bad for the game (just go back and ask the British Admiralty in 1940). Carriers are bad enough, but at least they can be targeted by ships of any class if they should happen to allow themselves to stray into firing range. Subs? Apparently not so much. Flamu highlighted this potential problem as well in his recent submarine video. Giving submarines an on/off invulnerability setting, which can be toggled at a moments notice by simply going from a depth of 5,9 to 6,1 meters and with a speed that will enable subs to dodge incoming shells as they are spotted in the air, is highly questionable. Giving submarines the added advantage of also being able to counter and effectively neutralize depth charge attacks by pressing the emergency dive button, seems quite frankly a bit ludicrous. It might fit in a single player submarine arcade game, but hardly in a PvP game with several other ship classes in play. Unlike Flamu, I believe that it shouldn't be all that difficult to balance submarines in relation to other ship classes. One way to go about this would be to make them extremely vulnerable to attack, if and when their stealth capabilities fail. And those stealth capabilities should not be made too strong. In fact, I'd say that Wargaming should err on the side of caution here, and make submarines harder rather than easier to play, if and when they are actually introduced into the game at large. The reworked carriers were made over-strong and noob-friendly so as not to scare away prospective players, and I think we can all agree that that has been less than a resounding success for the carrier PR department. We do not need another initially overpowered, and therefore generally reviled, new ship class in the game. Rather go the other way, and make submarines really challenging to play! And at the risk of sounding unfair, do not necessarily make them commensurately rewarding, since that would only risk creating a small but disproportionately significant master class of elite submarine players, that would sweep the oceans in any battle they entered. That kind of imbalance was part of the the problem with the old, pre-rework carriers, or so I've heard. Or if I should try to say this in another way: Make submarine gameplay rewarding, without making their weapon attacks too dangerous or devastating! Make the sneaky-sneak, stealthy submarine gameplay into its own reward! This is how I tend to regard current destroyer gameplay, which is challenging, fast-paced and rewarding, without - I think it's fair to say - making destroyers in any way imbalanced as a class. It's good to hear, but hardly surprising, that the underwater graphics have been well executed. Wargaming have made a terrific job with the game's graphics, and I am quite looking forward to see how they have rendered the underwater sinking animations! Be well, and I hope to meet you all on - or below - the Seven Virtual Seas in the future!

I am a long-time fan of the Terry Pratchett solution. Persistent borderhuggers should be allowed to fulfill their ambition, leave the map and drop off the edge of the world into limbo. Problem fixed, + funny. New problem: Accidental borderhuggers would be punished for the sins of the deliberate miscreants. This is probably enough of a reason to not implement the Terry Pratchett solution. Probably.

I quite agree! Getting a legendary captain, by mission grind or coal expenditure, and then have him at 10 points... well, it is sort of a free xp sink. If you don't immediately push him up to 19 points, you are just trolling yourself, but if you do, that is... how much free or elite xp, exactly? A lot, that's what. This is not so much of a bother if you are in a ship line where you have several interesting silver ships on different tiers. When I promoted my recently recruited Captain Sir Andrew Cunningham to flag rank, for instance, and put him in command of my Daring, I could easily find a job for my previous highest-level British destroyer captain as commander of my Jervis. The Daring is superb, but the Jervis is still a strong and rewarding ship at her tier. The Swedish line, on the other hand, has a more linear progression. Having got all the way up to the Halland, there is really not that much incentive to play any of the lower-tier Swedish ships, since the Halland is simply the paragon of that line, stronger at her tier than any of her predecessors are at theirs.

Thanks! It all seems needlessly complicated for what should be just another login procedure. And I don't even have a Twitch account, for that matter. Maybe Wargaming need to put in a bit of work on their user interface?

Ehm, if you actually got the stuff to work, could you maybe write down a step-by-step guide for dummies? It does not seem very likely that we will see one appear on the homepage, although that would be a good subject for one of those instruction videos...

WTF indeed. The information on the homepage explicitly states that we are supposed to use the same email address. So that is clearly one point of information that seems to be in need of some clarification. The instructions are also somewhat unclear on whether I can just install an additional game instance right away, or if I need to register a public account beforehand. On top of that, there seems to be an ongoing server issue that denies me access to the armoury and shop and which has barred me from logging in once already. So that does it for me - I will not risk messing anything up at this point. I may just wait for subs to appear in the regular game. For what it's worth, I am happy to note that according to the information on the WG homepage, submarines can once again travel on the surface. This is important, or we would lose out on those cool diving/surfacing scenes from the submarine movies we all know and love!

Didn't the homepage say something about updating the test account? It seems impractical having to uninstall and reinstall the whole thing. But if you already have a test account, then you have done this testing business at least once before. Did you feel compelled to create another user name and a new password for your test account? (I'd totally understand if you feel uncomfortable about answering these kind of questions!)

A noob question: If I create an account on the Public Test server in order to try out submarines this weekend, I've been told to use the same email adress as on my main account (or I won't get any of the special rewards). Is there any reason not to also use my ordinary persona name - Procrastes - and the same password? I have never before joined a public test, but I'm tempted this time. But I don't want to risk messing up my main account by accidentally getting something wrong, either. If all the names and numbers are the same, for instance, how do I know which server I am logging into when I start the game later? As I said, noob question...!

I actually think it sounds kinda cool and appropriate to have my little plane going after those pesky subs, whenever they are spotted! And it's not as if that plane could be relied upon sto stay out of AA zones anyway. At least if it starts following a submarine around, it probably wouldn't risk being shot down by anything the sub may carry in the form of AA guns...?

Fighter planes spot DD:s, and thus engage them by exposing them to fire from you as well as your allies. Giving them rockets as well, does not strike me as an idea that would promote balance within the game. Fighter planes, spotter planes and secondary armaments are not intended to be catch-alls that ensure a win in battles between battleships and destroyers. Nor are torpedoes, for that matter. These are all tools that, if used well, will help you to win the battle. But if that win was secured to begin with, then what would be the point of playing the game?

I must admit, the idea of being able to shoot that annoying radar disc to pieces - to pieces, I tell you! - is not altogether unappealing, from a DD point of view. It would also be 'historically accurate', as far as that goes. All the same, I don't really see this happening in the game. It might be a thing if radar sets were otherwise always on - like they actually are in real life - but that would also at a stroke make destroyers an extinct life form. Anyway, brownie points to you, Captain @Admiral_Oily_Discharge, for brainstorming efforts - new ideas are always welcome!