Karasu_Browarszky

I lost an asymmetrical battle. But the battle was otherwise good (not for me playing a Chinese tincan cruiser), and we got to play on one of the better Non-Ocean maps. This map has an elephant at G9.

Yes, for this reason CV's should not be present in battles where WW1 era ships are a majority. They should be introduced beginning with the interwar period ships and beyond.

Technically speaking, T4 CV's effectiveness should somehow be scaled to match the tier/period of other ship classes. AFAIK they were relegated to rather minor roles in WW1. As such, it could be argued they have no place in how low tier battles are played in the game.

Tier 2 Tsushima Operation would be most welcome!

Psst. It joined the Creamy Navy. Definite tier X potential here!

Yes, this is what is missing:

Has the look of a frigate to me, but I think it's closer to a patrol craft/corvette. See this for comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCE-842-class_patrol_craft Considering the structure of WoWS techtrees, I couldn't say exactly where a ship like that should go. The gun calibre is impressive, but the gun count much less so.

About 99.5% of the maps are coastal battle maps, not fit for high seas engagement. Consequently, coastal ships should fit right in, the problem is with tiering. Don't know about Finnish coastal ships, but if it was about Soviet coastal ships, they would be the best in the world and easily capable of fulfilling tier X slots in the game.

That would be good. The biggest obstacle to flexible solutions like this is WG's across the board obsession with similarly organized tech trees for every nation complete with BB's, cruisers, DD's and CV's.

The problem with this approach is there wouldn't be enough ships for complete trees, and I don't want to see trees made up of 90% of paper ships or complete fantasy ships either. That's what they are doing in WoT to make 'complete' tech trees. And that's also how the 'Great Soviet Navy' was born... if only in terms of pixel ships.... but I'm sure if they'd been build they would have been the absolute top cream of the world just like everything else the Soviets ever did.

Some are still too good for me. I'm sure they must be cheating somehow. Can I report them for unsportsbotlike conduct?

Nice! I finished it too, but as I don't do much progress daily, it took me a little longer than what I would have preferred. Had it been a permanent campaign, I would have felt a lot more relaxed about it. Fortunately it didn't cost me anything but time either, and what I possibly missed because I had to prioritize it because it was time-gated content. For those who use money for Free XP conversion (somewhat of a misnomer in this case, actually...) the key would be patience. But we've seen that the other psychological trick WeeGee likes to employ is sunk cost fallacy. It's always nice when at least some players find a way to beat the system.

Would prefer if campaigns were permanent or at least return on some basis of rotation. But doable, with time, allowing you to have a life outside of WoWS without having you to schedule your time and plan your gaming ahead for months. This temporary campaign felt a lot harder because of this reason, and also because of the ship/tier restrictions in place.

What is there not to understand. You can simply fulfill this requirement by honestly using your credit card (or your mum's where applicable) to purchase said ships or use real money to convert XP to Free XP when said ships may only be purchased in such a way. Thank you for your understanding.

True, one aspect of the CV threat comes not from their attacks but from being permaspotted which for a DD is very very bad. It's actually better to have a truly incompetent CV on the enemy team, wasting their planes wave after wave against enemy flak. (This is how I play CV's myself.... )

Well... the CV's just get better when you get to the higher tiers... and AA will still be bloody useless against a half competent CV so...

For me it's not about speed but about the guns. Some ships have good guns no matter what tier.. others well.. not so good.

Excellent! You've already learned a key concept of the failing team strategy. Always leave your team mate hung out to dry.

Didn't realize all those ships count as low tier nowadays...

Right.. but in Co-op it is more difficult to achieve 100% successive string of defeats unlike in Random. Four defeats today in a row with Mikasa. Gonna go for fifth right now! Actually checked I didn't complete the 'Destroyed' missions as I didn't have to. But with DD's in Co-OP that shouldn't be difficult, with BB's maybe more challenging on low tiers, on high tiers it is easy as you just rush at the enemy BB's and ram one of them. Guaranteed ONE kill! The torp hits were very easy to do with V-25/Derzky. 2 battles was more than enough.

Well.. I'm not doing this for the camo so much. Also note this is not a temporary campaign so you aren't force to work against an arbitrary deadline. Do a couple of battles daily or so by way of warm-up. I just needed a 'pretext' to play my way through the tiers as it were. IMO this is more fun than actually having to regrind the ships like with the 'Research' bureau.

For me Stage 1 was plain sailing, once I realised the torp hit and destroyed ships missions were much much easier and faster to complete in Co-op. That takes the stress away, as the others you can complete at your leisure in randoms.

Thanks! The code also popped up on Discord. Gives a string of missions for KoTS containers.

Meaning, as soon as you start firing you may assume you become a priority target?

That 'working as intended' explanation would work if A) WG was a US Corporation because their idea of support is exactly that and/or B) if that was the case for everyone here. However, it's working for some (if not the most), so it's kind of curious why some individual users would be having this sort of problem specifically when it comes to the ticket system.