Karasu_Browarszky

Sounds lovely. Post captain skills screw-up, I no longer use any kind of captain builds. I now fully trust my very own raw skill set only.

It depends on what you want to achieve, though. It's easiest to go for the main gun focus, for obvious reasons. Even if the secondaries would make sense, the slowness makes that a moot point, because there's not going to be anything to use those secondaries on once you finally get there.

I've read 'slow' here repeatedly, it's probably the biggest handicap you can take to a coop match, especially if you are planning to use coop to complete any of the daily or event missions, or doing naval battle. Focus on her strengths instead.

I see.. so it works as well as snake oil.

But, it's somehow not working then?

Are these limits account or individual ship based?

By the pointy looks of it, seems to be Made in Russia.

Cheers!

6th Anniversary collection SC.

And we are in the fix.

But but... they've had an entire department doing nothing for the past two years except crafting those underwater rocks. I think we really need to show some appreciation (non-monetary).

Maybe it's called 'persuasive marketing'? They'll slam it in your face repeatedly till you cave in.

An in-game replay would be welcome yes. At least for the last battle you played.

Not on EU. There was a general issue on Asia.. but currently the game on EU is up and running. Could be a connection issue at your end.

It's actually better to keep that attitude beyond those 1000 games. Most of the bellyaching you get from us old veterans, skilful or not, is because we've seen the game better than what it now is, and we've invested a lot of time and/or money into it. I'm recommending that especially newer players keep 100% F2P or very close to it. They'll be a lot happier down the road, no matter how things unfold.

I sometimes put on my fancy tinfoil hat. (Yes, it's made of those colored foils. It's special!) During those moments I brainstorm all sorts of things. One of them is that the 'random' MM also serves the function of producing predetermined battle results. How else can you explain those complete, total, inexplicably unavoidable battles where you get steamrolled flat. That is, of course, if you could have steamrolls on water.... that part I still haven't completely worked out...

Which queue do you think would take longer?....

Perhaps WG will soon have 'Skill Bundles' available in the Premium Shop.

A few days ago I happened to be watching so called 'News' on government channel. Some total git was telling us that, yes.. food prices are going to shoot up. But it is a good thing. Rejoice, peasants! As for the topic, I'm not sure if I like this sort of changes, economywise. What I do like is the idea of separation of 'exterior elements' from bonuses. If this means we will have more control on how our ships will look like in battle, it is a tentative thumbs up from me.

Otherwise known as the 'WoT Syndrome'.

I highlighted the article because I wanted to hear @fumtu's take on it. I don't know the subject area well enough and don't know sources where to either confirm it or debunk the claims. Lexington Institute is a thinktank and I assume they are a serious actor in the field. However, facts are facts and interpretations are interpretations. The timing of the initial Italian defeat is some time after the end of the Battle of Britain. While the British were aware of the relative weakness of the Italian Army, the British public may be another thing. Because of this, I'm not doubting that the Allied made us much as they could out of whatever glimmer of hope they could see. Specifically, for the benefit of the public. What I'm saying is... alongside the hard historical fact there runs a parallel dimension both of which contribute to the 'narrative', as it were. I don't think this is just 'propaganda' at that point (though, of course, initially it is just that). Because successful propaganda forms part of the narrative and comes to play a part in how events unfold. Psychologically speaking, the fallout from defeats maybe bigger than what the setback is in pure military terms. Same applies to victories. What I'm saying, facts matter, but the contemporary context is important as well.

I was only looking at what Wikipedia had to offer (apologies, I don't have access to better data currently, my personal library is somewhat poorly stocked...) Looks like Yugoslavia was the domino that triggered this mess to begin with....

The bad planning almost suggest as if the Germans didn't have sufficient time to prepare for Operation Barbarossa... I'm not sure if this is one of those old myths or not.

That's an interesting bit of information...

That seems to be a correct assessment of the situation. It's about the same @fumtu has said previously. The terrain in Russia was a major obstacle, especially during the muddy seasons, but even in summer considering the marshland, rivers etc. When the ground froze, the panzers could at least do something. The logistical problems with the ever extending supply lines. Lack of coherent planning coupled with strategic missteps. In my view, all of those problems slowed them down which, in turn, allowed the Soviets to plan their defense in preparation for the inevitable German offensive on Moscow. Had Moscow actually fallen, it's very likely that the Germans had found them essentially in the same position as Napoleon.