Procrastes

I'd prefer to call it "challenging but rewarding", myself. But individual experiences doubtlessly vary!

I chose the Torp Mod over the Aiming Mod on my T-61, without hesitation. I'm trying to train myself to never, ever rely on my guns to get the T-61 out of a sticky situation anyway, and this strategy has saved my bacon more times than I care to admit. So buffing the torpedoes over the guns was a no-brainer on this ship. Things may differ on other German destroyers, or due to personal preferences, I'm sure.

Thanks again! This is very interesting information. For one thing, it means that the idea of subs not being capable of surface travel was less bad than I've been giving Wargaming credit for - so my apologies for that, WG! As a DD main, I have been rather worried about my favourite scout class being outscouted and outclassed by the new submarines. It is good to know that others share these concerns. On the other hand, I believe that submarines would lose a lot of their cool factor if they weren't able to do the proper dive/surface thing. Hopefully, there can be a solution to please all. One possible solution that I can think of right away, would be to simply give surfaced submarines the same or larger detection radiuses as destroyers. They would still outspot anything that wasn't a destroyer, but it would mean that staying on the surface - for air supply, added view range and speed - would be a big gamble if any destroyers happened to be nearby. Rather like historical submarines, in other words. And the weirdness factor of submarines being spotted from longer ranges than destroyers, would surely be no greater than that of plane squadrons being spotted by surface ships before they spot them in return. But there may be other problems with this solution, that I haven't thought of?

Well, that's a tough proposition to deal with and no mistake. I guess what you do then, is to try and soften the battleships up with HE from maximum range* and hope that you will survive into the late game due to either your stalwart battleship allies tanking like bosses, or the blessings of the fickle Gods of War....? * I was about to write, 'long' range, but the London, bless her well-endowed tool kit, ain't got no long range.

The Gremyashchy says hi! Just the other day, I was hiding in smoke in my Gremyashchy, shooting up a passing battleship all the while knowing that a nearby enemy cruiser was likely to be inbound. So it was no big surprise to either of us when I exited the smoke screen and found myself immediately under fire from that cruiser at no more than 5 or 6 km range. What probably surprised him, though, was how fast he lost the ensuing gunnery duel. I blasted him to pieces from almost full health within the space of twenty seconds, losing no more than half my own health in the process. Those Russian 130 mm rail guns take no prisoners.* For this to happen, though, the enemy cruiser needs to give broadside. Which they are often all too eager to do, in an effort to bring all their guns to bear - but this is what gets them killed. A cruiser that angles in, can usually rely on its larger hit point pool to win in a fair fight against even the strongest gunboat destroyer. Of course, if you willingly enter into a fair fight, you've done it wrong from the beginning! * Gun calibre corrected after a kind remark from Captain Newman in post #64 below - thanks!

Thanks for the information! Two questions: 1. Which ship classes can actively seek out and attack submarines? 2. Can submarines travel on the surface? (There were reports of a very bad idea of subs not being able to travel on the surface at all.)

In my experience, you play Royal Navy cruisers with forethought and careful positioning. Your armour won't hold up against much at all, and you don't have the speed to get away quickly if you end up in the wrong place. But if you manage to end up in the right place - such as in a flanking position and able to deliver citadel hits on another cruiser, or in a smoke screen with allies to spot for you - you can truly deliver. Royal Navy cruisers tend to reward careful play, and punish mistakes harshly. This, in my opinion, is good ship design in a game.

That is an interesting question. I'd say that the Exeter has an overall stronger main armament, in that she is able to deal more consistent damage. But the Graf Spee is far tankier, and needs only to land one good AP volley to end the match. If I were in the Exeter, I'd try to make the fight into a long-range HE duel, and wear the Graf Spee down while hopfully on being able to dodge most shells from those big German guns. If I were in the Graf Spee, I'd try to close in as fast as possible without getting torpedoed (hydro running, of course), and maybe risk giving the occasional broadside in the hope of landing that decisive AP salvo.

Historically, planes were a major threat to submarines during WW2, especially if equipped with depth charges. Planes could spot and attack submarines at periscope depth, and if they managed to surprise a surfaced submarine, they could often reach it and sink it before it had time to dive. World of Warships is of course not based on historical reality, but on the idea of creating a fun and balanced PvP game environment. So carriers obviously should not be as omnipotent and dominating in the game, as they were in real life.* Even so, I believe that the intention is for carrier planes in WoWs to be able to spot and attack submarines at surface and periscope depth, with rockets as well as bombs. For all I know, Wargaming may even consider putting out a few special anti-submarine CV:s, presumably armed with special anti-submarine weapons. And although some real life WW2-era submarines had dual-purpose deck guns that could be used to defend against planes, I find it unlikely that Wargaming would consider giving any submarine in the game any workable anti-aircraft weapons. They are niggardly enough with supplying those to specially designed anti-aircraft cruisers, as it is. All in all, I expect the upcoming release of submarines into the game to incorporate an anti-submarine role for carriers. But I don't doubt that there are many on the forum with clearer insights into the future, than I have.** * I had to practise writing this sentence out with a straight face. ** See for example post #516 just above, by Captain lovelacebeer.

It is with great satisfaction that the Admiralty Board of the Pan-Asian Navy takes note of the opinions voiced on this conversation topic.

I decided long ago not to rest my fleet aspirations on random bundle drops. If you want a British CA, my advice would be to just buy the Exeter or the London. There are plenty worse ships out there. The Exeter is excellent at her tier, punishing mistakes but rewarding good and careful play. I've yet to really try the London out in random battles, but I suspect that her painfully low range - she can reach out to 13,4 km with her main guns - can be a problem unless you get your positioning just right. She's not really fast enough to get out of a sticky situation, either, but her smoke consumable should more than compensate for these weaknesses. For what it's worth, she's been doing fine in Operation Aegis, and I suspect that she will kick butt in most other operations as well. She's got a great consumable set for operations, and the lack of range is absolutely no problem there.

The Italian smoke seems much more adapted for disengaging than the British one - indeed, as I've understood it, that's its main purpose. I'm only at the Guissano at the moment, so I have no personal experience with Italian smoke. I have this impulse to free xp my way up to the Zara, mainly because she's such a beauty. Those Italian ship are real lookers!

I got the Devonshire in a bundle, and played her to good effect in Operation Killer Whale. Her guns made mincemeat out of the forts, and dealt very ably with the rest of the opposition as well. Her hydro and heal were excellent tools for handling all those incoming destroyers and cruisers, and it was really mostly when I messed up against a battleship that I got in trouble. The London has the same toolbox, with a smoke screen tossed in at the top to get out of Dodge if a battleship starts getting too close, so I expect her to perform at least as well as the Devonshire. The lack of range is no big deal in Operations. I look forward to trying these ships out in random battles. The London especially has an interesting array of tools on hand, but with that short range on her main guns, she needs only mess up once to land in dire straits (pun intended). Which is how it should be, or she'd risk ending up as totally OP. I am overall rather fond of the 'mobile glass cannon' style of combat vehicle. It's no wonder I loved the little ELC to bits in World of Tanks, for instance, and I still regard myself as a destroyer main in the World of Warships. Live fast, die young, and leave behind a scorched, water-sodden corpse, I say - although as a philosophy, it's probably better promoted on the virtual battlefield than irl!

This sounds like a good strategy. I bought the London straight away. There's no way I'm going to let the question of whether to get her late or at all hang in the balance and mess with my cool when I fiddle about with these new cruiser directives. The way I play - on and off during evenings and weekends and sometimes a battle or two before going to work in the morning - means I usually fall a fair margin behind getting any set of directives run through to its conclusion. So if I know I want a ship, I buy it from day one. Chilling out on directives is the only proper way to go about them, at least in my book. I have so far never bought a random bundle for money. Or maybe there was the one container, just for a lark, I don't quite remember - but I really don't much care for gambling with money. And after being a spectator to the Puerto Rico event, I am not going to touch a "grind as far as you can and fill out the rest with money" setup with a ten foot pole. To each his own, however, and I certainly wouldn't dream of judging anyone for their choices in this regard. As for the qualities of the London, she would seem to be an Exeter upgraded with smoke and with two more guns. So what's not to like? I guess there will be some differences to her softer stats that are bound to reveal themselves over time, but I'd be surprised to discover any crippling deficiencies.* If anything, she might be a bit to good in comparison with her peers; she does have a somewhat stronger set of cards in her deck than something ilke, for instance, the Aoba. All in all, I have fairly high hopes for her future performance. She kicked a$$ in the Operation Aegis during my first and so far only battle in her, if that is anything to go by. Oh, and I really like her dark green permanent camo pattern! And the white and gold one from the Admiral bundle is nice as well, especially since it seems to lack that corny "Royal Navy" text on the side which appears on my Devonshire.** Best of luck! * I just noticed that the London has a main battery firing range of 13,4 km, whereas the Exeter - which is one tier lower - has a firing range of 14,3 km. That is a fairly substantial difference. Are we seeing some compensation for the smoke consumable, here? ** I mean, yes, obviously the Devonshire is Royal Navy. If her distinct silhouette wasn't enough to go by, there's also the flag, which is what in certain circles would be described as a 'clue'.

Well, bugger me for a lark for just reading this: On the other hand: What I'm going for here, is that I don't believe that Wargaming have made this "technical issue" up. Why would they? As is clearly manifest on this thread, it only causes them further disaffection among the player base. Now, how quickly they intend to fix this issue, is of course another matter entirely. I have somehow gotten the impression that a technical overhaul of operations is both long overdue, and yet not a priority. Which, if true, sucks for those of us who enjoy this game mode. Me, I often go to operations to have some fun when I'm a bit too tired or unfocused to properly pull my weight in random battles, or to hone my skills in ships that I don't yet master well enough to take them into a real PvP game. Random battles is the heart of the game, but the other game modes add a valuable element of diversity that should not be underestimated. So I hope they don't intend to put operations on ice indefinitely. And before Captain iFax subjects me to some well deserved criticism for only partially quoting him above, here's the rest of his post: I must respectfully disagree. I don't think Wargaming is a joke - but the very fact that so many posts on this thread voice an open mistrust of the information coming from their communicators, clearly shows that they have a public relations credibility problem. I can testify to this myself, since I regard the recent Puerto Rico event as anything but a joke - rather, is was a sad and cynical demonstration of just how far at least some part of WG management is prepared to go down the lane of unethical marketing strategies. It was the first time I have experienced this kind of thing from Wargaming, and I am inclined to give them a second chance - but I'd be stupid not to to take note for the future. That being said, I really don't think we should read too much into the present issue with operations. Technical glitches are endemic in online games, after all, and WoWs is surely no exception. Hopefully, the voices on this and other threads will induce Wargaming to get all operations up and running without unreasonable delay - and if they add some more while they're at it, so much the better.

Thanks for help in making my case stand up to arguments, again! Because I cannot help but to feel this upcoming line of Russian cruisers as something of a slap in the face. If put through in its current form, it will rewrite the rules of engagement - and not just for destroyers, but for other ship classes as well. Improved penetration angles, to go with those high velocity flat-arced Russian shells? Weep, ye US Navy cruisers, for your sun is setting! Nice stealth values? Sure, and I guess those British cruisers can suck on that - they will still be more stealthy, but then there's that radar. High speed, to almost catch those French cruisers (and they will be running, if they have any sense). Yolo torpedoes, because otherwise those old-timers in the Imperial Japanese Navy might actually consider themselves worth a damn. So many strong points, all - as far as I've understood it - supposedly balanced by an "average" reload. Are WG trying to prove that Russian bias is real? I have never seen it as an issue before, but after seeing the Kremlin and the Smolensk enter the game, I'm not so sure anymore. Although I guess they could always halve the hit points of the AA mounts on those new cruisers, and call it even...?

For what it's worth: I would also like for Wargaming to fix any problems with the current scenarios. And it would be fun if they chose to introduce some new ones. I would welcome a "historical" scenario fitted specially to suit Axis ships, for instance. But I realize that they can't do everything at once.

Come to think of it, naval operations going awry and allied ships suddenly going the wrong way for no apparent reason, could probably be described as historically accurate.

If they don't have the resources available for fixing it right away, it would make sense not to have it up and running in a bugged state. Good question, if what you say is true. And I'm not saying you're wrong; I just haven't noticed any problems with other scenarios myself.

Over 1,5 kilometers stealth range margin, then. Gosh. And I can't really make a case for the Chapayev having done anything to cripple destroyer gameplay lately. Of course, it's just the one ship, but still... maybe I should rethink my doomsday scenario?

In the linked post under #1 above, Mr Conway states that Operation Narai will be removed for a few updates until they have ironed out the bugs. So it won't be gone forever. And what he says about WG not wanting to have bugged operations up and running seems only reasonable. I guess the devs are all working double shifts to get the new submarines up and running, right...?

The Chapayev can stealth radar? Gee, don't I feel just a bit stupid.... I guess that shows how much I know about this game I've been playing for five years or more? My main point about the inherent problems with stealth radar still stands, though. And just out of interest, how big is the stealth radar window of the Chapayev, with the relevant skill and module?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that neither the Stalingrad nor any of the other Russian cruisers that are presently in the game, can stealth radar? That is, they all get spotted from further out than their radar bubble extends? To me, speaking from a destroyer captain's perspective, that makes for a rather big difference! That being said, I do hope you are right....!

I agree completely. In fact, I will go even further and say that... Stealth radar may cripple destroyer team play as we know it It was not too long ago that Wargaming made some overall changes by which they removed stealth radar capability for US cruisers. Basically everyone could agree that this was a good decision, since stealth radar is bad for the game. WoWs is a game about play and counterplay, and stealth radar more or less eliminates counterplay (since it can't be countered; more on this below). Reintroducing it again, for Russian cruisers, would not only be an act of such blatant hypocrisy that I'd struggle to find words to properly denounce it, it would also deal yet another - and perhaps fatal - blow to destroyer team play. I should probably qualify my last and rather bold statement. I am not one to lightly toss doomsday prophecies around, and I have seen destroyer gameplay survive through many changes in the past. It survived the removal of open water stealth fire (which was a good decision, btw), it survived the introduction of radar mechanics, it has even survived the CV rework. I'm fairly sure that destroyer gameplay will also survive stealth radar - just not perhaps in its current form. There are basically three ways to play in a destroyer. You can do the torpedo ninja style, driving around spotting targets and do your best to avoid getting spotted in turn while unleashing waves of torpedoes on your enemies (IJN destroyers and their kind do this). You can do the open water gunboat style, kiting around at range and trusting to your speed to keep you safe while lobbing HE at your enemies (Russian and French destroyers say hello). Or you can do the close-quarters, cap contending, DD vs. DD dogfighting style, which brings the fight to the enemy and is a very high-risk/high reward style of play (American and British destroyers, among others, tend to favour this approach). Everyone should ideally be able to enjoy the game in whatever way he or she likes best. But unless someone goes for the caps in Domination Mode, or goes forth to spot and counter other destroyers at close range in Standard Battle Mode, the gameplay will suffer - for all classes. These past years have seen a number of challenges introduced to make the job more interesting for close quarter gunboat captains - radars and the carrier rework to name but two. We close quarter gunboat captains - for I am such a one - are not the sort to shrink from a challenge. Carriers can be dodged and worked around. Radar ships (in their current form) can be outspotted and either subjected to focus fire from one's allies, or baited into wasting their radar consumables. Sure, it's a risky gambit, but that's part of the fun. To every play from the opposing team, there is counterplay. Unless we get stealth radar, that is. For a destroyer captain with any ambition to scout or cap, there is no real counterplay to stealth radar. If a stealth radar cruiser gets detected but doesn't see his enemy, he will know that there is a destroyer within radar range. He can just trigger his radar and start gunning the destroyer down. If I understand the numbers correctly, these new Russian cruisers will typically have almost two kilometres worth of stealth radar margin, which will give them more than enough time to sink any destroyer in the game with those high HE-damage, 1000 meters per second Russian rail guns. The destroyer captain can do nothing to counter this, since by the time he detects the cruiser, he will already be well within radar range. A stealth radar cruiser can position himself just outside a cap, preferably close to some island cover, and play the waiting game. If the cap starts getting flipped, he will again know that there is an enemy destroyer near. Whereupon he triggers his radar and proceeds as outlined above. To sum it up, I can see absolutely nothing good come of the proposed reintroduction of stealth radar. It will not be any less bad for the game simply because it will now belong to Russian rather than American cruisers. It will not eliminate destroyer gameplay - since there will still be opportunities for long-range kiting and torpedo spamming - but it might cripple what I will in this context name destroyer team play. And I, for one, would be sorry to see that happen.

And that later game phase is also when Radio Location can be the most disruptive (too strong a word, perhaps), since it removes a lot of the otherwise entertaining cat and mouse-play.