Karasu_Browarszky

And.. @SV_Kompresor that would seems to be to your liking.

On paper... everything is possible.

10 pt captains would be 'rarer'. As for thinking you got the Montana (for free) too, it's a mistake many would make, and many have made a similar mistake in the past because WG uses 'potentially misleading' graphics, shall we say...

Well.. 'Two Brothers' I think... is very close to this I think. Nobody ever goes thru the mid.. until, of course, they do.

Gee whiz... never knew there were so many people prone to naming and shaming in the battles...

... an island..

FTFY

.... ... The End is Near!!!...

The devil made an island. (Well... at least one. Possibly copypasted on WoWS maps.) There's very few things that I'd be willing to pay WG any money these days. One is historical camo patterns/paintjobs (and flags...), another is historical battle scenarios, and the third is... GIVE ME AN OPTION TO NEVER SEE THE EFFING ISLANDS AGAIN. The Ocean rules!

Well.. if the price for the camo is the same for any tier... it's going to be relatively more expensive on the lower to mid tiers to use a camo, so this is going to affect everyone in the long term IMO. Will the new camo also yield a better return for the credits or will this lead to less credits in the future? F2P, especially those starting out will be effected more. Also, there's no way to get as many free camo from crates or missions as you will need if you keep playing regularly.

Looks somewhat Tashkentish, but not quite.

A somewhat obsolescent term, my friend. You may wish to update your vocabulary to keep apace with the times.

I'm seriously thinking of naturalism as a viable option.

'Excellent choice!' Been there as well..

I see potential for some further 'miscommunications'.

I'd rather call what rewords, actions, meta changes, economy changes.... casino house rules.. whatever.. that Wargambling engages in as 'WG's Great Leak Windward'.

IIRC, 'For Meritorious Service' was their only decent looking camo. Way to go...Nuff said...

..er.. Login SC.

Surely 32 knots must be the minimum for Soviet BB's....

I can understand that point of view, especially if the designs are balanced and credible. What I would prefer, still, is that they would at least remain true to realistic naming conventions. If the ships names at least were realistic, it would make the design ships 'fit in' better in the overall scheme of things, making them feel as they really could have been built and seen service.

Yes, but if you do this for BB's, it would further heighten the discrepancy in popularity between the BB's and DD's in particular. Every single DD that existed has the same bells and whistles as any BB, they got their individual service records, possibly honours and citations, and an equal right to be represented in the game, IMHO.

I see your logic. Still, adding a number of Fletchers, as an example, wouldn't bother me. If they are all the same, there wouldn't be any detrimental balance issues. Maybe somebody really likes the Fletchers and would like to have several of them. This would be really relevant if we had more operations to choose from, and on several tiers. The unique vs non-unique argument doesn't light up my boilers. Yes, Tashkent is a real ship, and a great ship as well, though somewhat difficult to play. I can somewhat understand and sympathise with WG because they are short of real Soviet ships to add to the game, compared with the world's major naval powers which the Soviets weren't until the introduction of the nuclear submarines.... which are missing from this game and I'm totally fine with that.

I can see a pattern... But yeah.. it's funny them adding figments of fantasy when there are so many real ships to choose from... though, mostly those would not be flying the proud ensign of the red workers and peasants navy.