Prospect_b

edit: ninja'd by nechrom in a second :/

Well, we just have to trust WG and their data analysis, until said data indicates that there are no more people willing to spend €€ to freexp the monqueror left that the community might have been right from the beginning & that those ships are indeed broken as hell. edit: and no, flamu will not be in trouble, cause this vid is pure gold () for WG, PR-wise

Chapayev. 9/10 tier 10mm with every freaking tier 10 bb aiming at me the entire game. This ship is the guarantee to see mountain range in standard battle. Citadels all day from any angle whatsoever. Really have been contemplating to demount radar & go for spotter plane. (2nd choice Hinden because meta is way too passive)

Even though I like the bbingo card (not how WG keeps checking it though...), you seem to have made an error here: Vigilance is not going to help against torp bombers. If any bbs have taken this skill for that reason: you can just replace the three points with survivability expert. You know, like half of your colleagues do...

Enemy dd died Enemy cruisers died, but one Enemy bloody carrier died All enemy BBs alive I am utterly amazed

uhu and 5+5 is 10... still bigger than 9, true?

(if only it were true )

Good one... What cruiser players want to limit is the amount of bb players in every game. Seeing 5 dds in a game is in the end quite rare, seeing 5 bbs is the norm. I started playing DD instead of (or better: as well as) cruiser just because of that reason, my bet is a lot of other cruiser players did too. But I guess if enough BB players were to complain about it, WG would change it soon enough (BBs can be taken on by carriers, can't have that. BBs can be citadelled by BB/CA, can't have that. But yea, it's the cruisers who are c*nts, right?)

OP ship eh? You mean that konig albert, that was proclaimed to be OP by the mighty WG overlords themselves and to be taken out of the shop?... https://eu.wargaming.net/shop/wows/main/7109/

There is nothing random about having to face 5 battleships about every game. You know what happens when there are 5 bbs a game? There's enough of them to be spread out, so one of them will always have a good angle on a cruiser, which cannot angle without giving side to another one. And to be "coordinated" focused upon as a cruiser, the enemy team really doesn't need to be all clanmembers communicating through teamspeak. That happens naturally... Any cruiser player with priority target skill knows that. Which you too know well enough. You're just saying (random...) things now.

This was regarding my and @mtm78's question about why MAX 1/7 BBs is considered balanced in one gamemode, and 5/12 in another. Still waiting... @MrConway

Being citadelled in a cruiser is fine if you screw up, and it would be even more fine if BBs also could do it to other BBs if they screw up... The solitary shell leaving the rest of it's volley and hitting for max damage on your maximally angled *ss, could do with a nerf though.

Ok, just to make this absolutely clear: You are saying 1. that meeting 2 tier X BBs in a tier X cruiser is too much, as well as 2. Meeting 5 BBs in any cruiser in randoms is "balanced" (which, of course, includes meeting 3/4 tier 10 BBs in a tier 8 cruiser, see pictures in my earlier post) Can you confirm?

Are you kidding me? I'm getting really sick of all these new bbs (and old ones) with their ludicrous cloaking devices. You do realize that a concealment specced cleveland only has a few hundred meters on the GC, right? Too lazy to look all of them up, but most cruisers are in +- that region of concealment. Worse is that it is premium. In that tier spectrum a lot of cruisers won't have concealment exp yet, so that nice clubbing bb will just outspot a lot of said clevelands, furutaka's etc. Fun. But it is nice to see WG is adressing its selfproclaimed BB problem of course. Trustworthiness dropping day after day - playerbase to follow?

A while ago there was a thread here concerning CV. I was honest enough to say that given the often enormous skillgap between cv players in randoms, I wouldn't care if cvs would outright disappear. I took quite some sh1t for that opinion. However. If there is one setting where I do not care at all about carriers in game it would be these clan things. Here at least the teams will not have to rely on a 35% carrier, and further, if the friendly cv indeed is worse than the opposite one, this is the setting where the tradition counterargument, i.e. coordinated teamwork, can indeed be realized and where the argument "if your team can not coordinate against the enemy carrier, it deserves to lose", is 100% VALID. (Not to mention the limitation of only one BB will give rise to quite some cruiser heavy teams, which doesn't exactly make the cv position one to be envied.) Regarding that BB cap. If there is one cruiser tier that can handle itself somewhat decently against BBs, it surely is tier 10. The fact that WG claims even 2/7 BB would be overkill is more than retarded, once again, given the situation in randoms, where the common BB mass is 150% of the mass you claim is overkill in clan battles? Really, you kidding me? (See attachment) tldr: Any real teambased setting, like CB, would be ideal to explore meta-variation. What does WG do? Impose absurd limitations built on quite uncredible and (compared to the random setting) hypocritical reasons. ---- PS Attached my only 2 chapayev games from yesterday. " "The "one battleship" limit is introduced because even two battleships in one team in a 7x7 battle can adversely affect cruisers' ability to actively participate in battle by delivering cross-fire from their high-calibre guns." Uhu.... Please, Wargaming, tell me more. @MrConway?

From the website: "The "one battleship" limit is introduced because even two battleships in one team in a 7x7 battle can adversely affect cruisers' ability to actively participate in battle by delivering cross-fire from their high-calibre guns." But seeing 5 frigging bbs about every game in randoms in 12x12 isn't a problem, right?... Hilarious bullcrap.

What was wrong with them?

Well, if your comments on cruisers were meant to be especially with the brit bbs in mind, you were fully right. I'm grinding the frenchies atm, just arrived at t6. Thing that constantly happens is +- this sequence: - first bbrit salvo: module (engine/rudder - or both) broken (and or at least one fire of course) (- if only a fire, I can wait with repair until in cover (in best case) or wait 20 sec and hope no dd is close enough to spot) - need to immediately repair said module - next salvo: repeat: broken modules, fires And nobody at WG notices how broken this is? And now I see the same BS is coming again with that tier 5 italian bsBoat, which has concealment about the same as cleveland, and cruiser dispersion. @Sub_Octavian , is this all intended?? Especially given the "plan to adress battleship problem xaxaxa" and other PR nonsense.

I really hope I never have to use them tbh. Sounds like they are playing for fun...

I grinded through Wyoming & New York around april. I found them to be quite ok, even the NY in which I saw t7 almost exclusively. Though I must admit I wouldn't want to grind them atm, with those idiotic "leftclick to set enemy on fire" new BBs. I find it more than ironic that the brits were supposed to counter bow-on meta, while they themselves seem to be ideal for bow-on reverse while setting the world on fire. (and yea, that's maybe not the best way to use them, but I don't think even 10% of the ships in game are properly used) I wouldn't want to grind any low/mid tier line at the moment. Phoenix as well I found an extremely nice ship to play. The others I can't really comment. Myogi has always been a piece of sht anyhow. @Reaper_JackGBR , for the rest I think I agree with about 99% of your statements. Very good of you to make an antithesis of the bbingo card. Cheers.

EVEN in chapayev

class report ;)