Trainspite

Considering that the RN CL I have seen in modelling is only suitable for tier 10, it does not make sense for WG to try and intermix CAs and CLs. Especially since the RN has more than enough ships to create two complete Light Cruiser lines (4" to 6") with few paper ships (5/19) , as well as masses of CA designs for tier 8, 9 and 10 (7.5" to 9.2"), which can manage a line from tier 4 to 10 as well. It is not likely WG will try and shove some Heavy Cruisers into a line that ends with a Light Cruiser. There is no need to do it and try and mix up the gameplay like that. It isn't the same as with the Russians who had to resort to mixing the calibres up to create a tech tree. The USN doesn't have enough ships to create a full line, hence why a 2nd CA line and CL line would start at tier 7. Same goes for the IJN, although they have no high tier CL candidates, while having plenty the low tiers that the USN doesn't. The RN on the other hand, have it all, unsurprising given the size of the RN. As for carriers, the obvious choice for a 3rd line is the RN. While second IJN, USN & RN lines will have to wait, along with the mostly paper carriers of France, Italy, Germany & Russia. It is balance depending, but a new branch of carriers can help freshen up the carrier scene a bit. Or sent it into chaos. And there are famous RN names to be had. Maybe attracted players to them. After an RN branch, the main 3 have their first line of carriers, and WG can stop there for a while, due to their low playerbase. German DDs are a possibility for a line 2017 by my reckoning, maybe they could displace USN CLs from 2016. KGV is good for the tier 8 slot in a RN Fast BB tree. Prince of Wales is a good candidate for a tier 8 premium alongside Vanguard. WG have said they will move Cleveland with the USN CL line at some point soon. Which does free up tier 6 in terms of balancing. I think this year, since Cleveland does cause a lot of problems with her current placement, in terms of new ships. Hmm. Seems like preliminary work for German Destroyers. Could be Late 2016/Early 2017 as date.

Sounds interesting, where did that come from? (Scharnhorst also should have torpedoes as well) Well, give Cleveland her historical AA set up, her 10 RPM and her split citadel back for starters. Maybe a spotter plane as well. The sticking point seems to be shell velocity, which is historical, and was never nerfed iirc (More maneuverable ships etc.). I'm not sure if there is a way around this, as Worcester and the Super Worcester would also use this shell as well I think.

Well, they have tier 9 Worcester lined up. They also only have to model 3 more ships beside Worcester, including a Worcester based Tier 10, under what I think most likely. Since the USN can only manage a CL line from tier 7 to 10. And while duplicate lines were not a huge priority for them right now, USN CLs offer an easy way out of a full line (Sneaky WG), while moving Cleveland to tier 8 where she belongs. Which eliminates a lot of the balance problems Cleveland created at tier 6. (Overbuffed Aoba etc. - WW2 Light Cruiser trying to balance itself with Interwar cruisers)

For new lines I would stick my bets on: 2016: VMF Cruisers HF-KM Battleships RN Light Cruisers (1st Line) USN Light Cruisers While for 2017 I think that the following is likely: RN Battleships (1st Line - Would make many many people pleased) RN Carriers (1st Line - Also dependent on if carrier balance has been tweaked a little) A new nation/s (France & Italy, Now is your time!) A new Destroyer line. Germans? French? Italians? (3 RN lines in a year seems a little too much to hope me thinks ) And maybe a few premiums from other countries. The Netherlands, etc. With the above we could have 5.5 Cruiser Lines, 4 Destroyer, 4 Battleship & 3 Carrier. So a 4th line for 2017 may be likely to be another BB or DD line. Or just more cruisers. Could always be that.

I personally prefer this brand of butthurt remedy myself.

Come back Hosho, all is forgiven, I did not say all those nasty things about you!

This intrigues me since when I was a lot younger, I read a book detailing the main character's experiences at Trafalgar. That character for some reason shared my surname. Apparently 3 others share that surname, although I can't find out where they came from. 1 Boy Sailor (From London), and 3 Marines (Privates) - HMS Victory and Temeraire, Belleisle (x2) respectively. The other family name I know of brings up no less than 25 results. Several of which are possible, though not especially nearby to the whereabouts of my ancestors I know about.

And New Mexico takes over from the mighty Ark to clinch 3rd place of all time top damage scores for me

Then I pity you. Which is why Destroyers get detonated more often (at least in my experience) Probably exploded on the turrets or something. Maybe WG have some kind of mechanic in place for detonations with HE to give the smaller little HE spamming ships a chance, like they should in a game of this type. Since their AP would probably be nye on useless against Battleships. I severely doubt if we take a Tachibana or any old Destroyer out in a training room and aim at the magazine of a battleship or another any old ship, that it will detonate. There has got to be a mechanic in place, simply aiming at the magazine, or having a shell explode along a trajectory leading it to the magazine. Otherwise you would see multiple detonations every game. (Only happens at tier 1 in my experience, my first Hermelin game was me detonating someone, then getting detonated, and then watching the guy who killed me get detonated in turn.) Rudder and engine hits have to controlled in game for game enjoyment of the game, since they are lot more common. People would be complaining something fierce if flooding, rudder, engine hits, and fires took several minutes to fix. Plus, if you do that to a ship, you do not really reap the rewards of the hit, unlike in WoT where tracking damage can count. Detonation is different, since it is instant. You get the rewards there and then. An instant +1 -1 if you will. Plus getting your rudder or engine knocked out in reality is not always a death sentence, although is sometimes the case. Detonations give the chance that things can happen, while the rest of the examples are ways of damage. Detonation is that constant that you can damage and kill them. And therefore can have a huge impact on the game if all aligns.

You boring person! I loaded up the Tachibana for a game, raced ahead, fired my first salvo at a Sampson contesting the area I was in, and the first 76mm HE shell that hit him crashed through his forecastle and detonated him. I lol'd hard at that moment. It may have created frustration for the Sampson, but +1, -1 is okay right? We do not need enjoyment equality here do we? Especially when a -1 will be balanced out by a +1 along the way.

That is wrong, they require just the same amount of skill. You are still aiming at the ship, the aiming is the skill, you double click, and from henceforth RNG carries your shots there. If those shells all hit the citadel then it is RNG. If the shot hits the magazine, then it is RNG. The dispersion and the target moving are the only things that can affect it now. And guess what, you can use the same tactics for avoiding citadels for avoiding detonations, the shell still has to get to the magazine. If the shell is bounced before the magazine, then it is bounced. Same goes for the citadel. It is not like if the shell hits a point on the ship where it's trajectory crosses the magazine it detonates. A Tachibana's 76mm shell is not going to detonate the Montana by aiming at it's magazine, you have to get through the armour. Which is why I see Destroyers getting detonated more often, they do not have the armour to resist it. The exact same way applies for Cruisers and citadels. Gib. Nau. Plox.

It's RNG if your shell hits anything. Be it the ship, the sky, the sea, the birds in the sky, a citadel, or the magazine. Basically you are just complaining about dispersion mechanics. It's nice feature, a historical one, and adds a bit of flavour and randomness to the game. Spice things up a bit. Know you have that chance. Plus, it is quite uncommon, in my 1000+ games, I have been detonated in 12 of those. And I have handed out about the same number. Roughly then, the number of detonations I have had is 1 in a 100. Exactly what it is meant to be. In games, you have to multiply that 1 by the other players though, so 24 out of a 100. Quite high to be honest, but these happen in varying circumstances. To a low HP ship it is worthless. Basically a detonation is comparable to a multiple citadel hit from a battleship. Usually a death sentence. Only it requires a single shell or torpedo instead of 3 or so, but that shell has to hit a much smaller area. So it balances out. No one really complains about multiple citadels from battleships, so why question the ability for the other ship classes to have a chance of getting a 1 shot kill? Except those are the sacrifices WG are prepared to make for a playable game, without making matches last hours. Detonations add to the game, add a touch to the game without turning it into a purely arcade game. WG want to keep this game not too detached from reality, and so removing a historical feature like Detonations, just tips the game into completely arcade with a historical skin. Plus removing detonations do not help gameplay, they just make it blander, removing a possibility that is always there, making the game more predictable, and in ways, a lot less fun. I'm pretty sure that WG will never remove it anyway, so this thread is fairly pointless.

I say nay. I like the randomness of knowing that can happen. It gives that chance to someone in whatever situation.

Depends if count Thunderchild as a torpedo ram like HMS Polyphemus, or a pre-dreadnought Battleship as she is usually shown...

Saw Chamorro in the Langley divisioned up with a Clemson (Name I can't remember). I was also in a Clemson, and we basically flattened the enemy team. Shame I did not notice him until the score screen, so I missed the chance to greet him.

The Brave tactic of running away did not serve me well against that Kutuzov. Or the other 4-5 ships that sank me in very short order just after Gunerstile. Did not even manage one citadel, which was annoying as well.

*Gives cookie and apologises profusely* (Drat, now I owe someone a cookie)

The Horror was when I when I tried to make sense of it. Incidentally the mash up of Honour and Horror has made a word that sounds like it is out of Lord of the Rings....

Ugh. Stop whining about Ocean. It is certainly not a bad map. It may be tough on certain ships, but they can do decently, it depends on the quality of the captain at the end of the day. And personally, I hope that people who moan about it do get it multiple times in a row. The only difference is you can't hide (Unless you are a DD) - you have to fight. So of course with no Islands to ram themselves arground and hide behind, a lot of players play extremely passively, not contesting the caps. Not the fault of the map, it is the fault of the players. Arguably, Destroyers are the most important here as they can take the caps unseen while the rest of the team passively trails behind them. As well, +1 for Historical Immersion. Not many battles were fought around 15 Island archipellagos. And Judging from how WG try to use the historical values of the ships, they do want to retain some sort of immersion here.

Well, a lot closer to the Nokaze sub-class of Minekaze than Mutsuki really. Minekaze > Nokaze > Kamikaze > Mutsuki Which leads me to think if Kamikaze is the premium, then Nokaze could claim the spot in a second Japanese Desroyer tree.

Well, it works well enough to give national flavours to the different navies, although it is not the best way of going about it. WG is unlikely to change it right now anyway, with the focus being on new content. Fuso as built had 25 degrees of elevation I believe, still enough to lob a shell a good 28km or so. When Fuso was rebuilt in the 1920s, the maximum elevation angle was increased to 33, then 43 in the 1930s. I'm guessing they have not gotten around to nerfing Kongo or so, since the rangefinder method holds true for most ships, like being used as the excuse for Albany's range buff. (A Rangefinder could be mounted further up the mast in theory - therefore 6.2 to 8.3(?) It's not based on mast height I think, but on objects on the mast. Hence Pensacola and Myogi, having a large detection radius due to the (small for Myogi, large for Pensacola) platforms on the mast.

C'est Magnifique! Strange that I thought of that too though, been in a couple never seen one flying though, which is something I will have to do at some point.

Hmm, which picture to choose. This one will do:

If no RN premium tier 8s appear for years, then famous ships like Vanguard, Belfast, Indomitable, (Ark Royal?) and Prince of Wales will not appear for ages. Considering Belfast is on that list, and there is an RN CL line coming along (With Edinburgh as the only built candidate for a tier 8 CL), I think we will get a RN tier 8 premium relatively soon.

You have ignored what I said earlier though. WG don't use the effective firing range of the guns for the range in game. They use the height of the gunfire control director. So for the Japanese, with their Pagoda masts, with rangefinders and control director atop of those, they get a huge range, over a smaller ship, like Warspite. Texas' rangefinder is lower than Warspite's, but Texas can mount the artillery plotting room to increase the range, while Warspite can not. I don't think WG change from this perspective anyway, without having a serious impact on the gameplay of most ships. As for Warspite's survivability, she seems to sit higher in the water since she got her historical in game camoflage. In the very first game I played after that patch, I got citadelled by a Impregnator at an angle I would have thought impossible the patch before.