StuntMan0369

Just for clarity; 1. The Brits - The switch to AP only happened very early in their development. It was a weird change, but it happened early enough that there shouldn't have been any real issue as they are WIP ships. 2. The Germans - Yes; this is a real issue. This was the first real issue, but more for the insane gun-bloom that no other line received until much much later. The smoke and hydro reductions were also a factor, but no-where near as significant. 3. Graf Zep - Again, this is a real issue, but not for the reason you described. The switch to DB's was always mentioned and CC's were well aware. it was the new AP bomb delay and HE drop pattern that wasn't covered and ultimately had 22 and a half hours of live testing available before it hit the EU shop.

More pen is only good if it allows you to penetrate more areas. Most of the larger guns already have enough pen for most of the things you'll be shooting at. And with quite a few cruisers switching to a more effective armour layout that prevents HE citadels, it's questionable if the HE gives much more value. I'm sure someone has a list of values for cruiser armours and where it matters.

Gonna take a wild punt here... but is he Tetsuzō Iwamoto, top scoring ace of IJNAF? The Award matches up but I can't link any of the rest of it... Edit: I'm also thinking Yamamoto, the awards match, the picture of Musashi(?) matches...

Ok, so, as a prominent member of the data-mining/leak community - I'll just clear one thing up; No-one in the leak community 'establishes' the ships like that. We (Or atleast I know I do) report on the current state of the ships from the most recent information we have access to, make initial thoughts about them, and discuss how this iteration would fare in the current version of WoWs. We never say this is set in stone, we always say things are subject to change. Any discussion about their performance is hypothetical, and is ultimately beneficial to you at WG, because you start getting feedback on what the player-base feels up to a month in advance of what your schedule would allow. Yes, some people will take it as gospel and get mad at changes to something that was never set in stone, but that's an issue with the individual, not the process of data-mining. It also is a bit of a trust issue, since data-mining has caught you guys out on changes in the past - The botched launch of the German DD's was called out by data-miners before you even informed your own CC's.

For best range, it's a fair fight between the Germans, French and Russians. The Russians are arguably better due to their improved ballistics, making it easier to hit at those longer ranges. They can't take a lot of fire in return though, until the mini-battleship that is Moskva at tier 10. Germans have the better overall armour and high AP alpha damage, but suffer in detection and mobility at higher tiers. The French have speed on their side, along with a decent HE shell, but like the Russians, can't take many hits. Range isn't the only determining factor in a cruiser and whilst long range is beneficial, cruisers like the American's and British can make it work surprisingly well without. Experiment a little with the lines, going up to tier 5 or 6 in each of the lines should give an idea of playstyle for each of them, and is relatively quick to do.

Basically, using Colorado as an example; You have 4 dual turrets, so 8 guns total. Let's say you fire a full salvo at an enemy, 8 shells are fired. Now, with Battleship dispersion the way it is, you'd be lucky to get more than 50% of these to hit unless at closer ranges. Let's say you hit 3/8 shells. This would translate to 37.5% hit ratio. It doesn't matter if you get a citadel or just bounce off the armour, a hit is a hit. Don't forget, there will be salvos were you just don't hit anything, and that will drastically lower your MBH over time. 23% MBH is relatively low, a good level to aim for is ~30%, but that can be lowered for BB's due to their sporadic dispersion. For comparison, my Colorado averaged out to 27% over 32 games.

The skill only works when you are currently detected by any of the aforementioned factors that you've listed off. Any enemy ship that is currently locked on to you (default key 'x') will add to the counter by the side of the detected warning (This is certainly true for Main Battery guns, I am still uncertain whether this includes torpedo tubes as well. Since secondaries are AI controlled, it wont add to the counter). If they're trying to blind-fire you whilst you're in a smoke screen or behind an island, the indicator will not work since you are not currently detected. Hope that clears it up a little!

Definitely not IFHE - The Akatsuki at most has 20mm of armour (And that's on turrets, her hull is a flat 16mm) and 127mm HE can pen 20mm of armour no problem. IFHE would provide no benefit in a 1v1 Akatsuki fight.

That's.... rather curious. Like @atomskytten said, the armour on Montana is pretty solid that 6" AP fire especially at that range shouldn't really trouble her... If you have the replay file of that game, we could get a much more accurate look at exactly where the shell landed, and would very much help figure out where this armour weak-zone is (whether it's intentional or bug).

As already said, it's a new premium Tier 5 Russian BB that's currently undergoing testing. Here's her IRL; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Gangut_(1911) Currently she's testing a new gimmick of Limtied Damage Control Party; I think it still has a rather mixed reaction so far.

Hey Sub, thanks for having the time to do one of these on EU! My question relates to torpedo damage; How exactly is it calculated? From what I currently understand, there are 3 values that are used; 'alphaDamage', 'Damage' and 'Max Torpedo Damage'. I'm aware of the formula to calculate 'Max Torpedo Damage'; 'alphaDamage'/3 + 'Damage'. What I also understand is that typically speaking, the rough approximation on Torp damage is 1/6 'alphaDamage' to the section and then 1/6 'alphaDamage' to the body, just like any other HE shell. However, when the Black was introduced to the game, we saw very inconsistent results with it's damage, due to it having an insanely high 'Damage' stat, unlike any other torpedo in the game. This threw the previous damage calculation out the window, and I have no reasonable answer as to why besides the 'Damage' stat having a greater influence on damage than I know. Every other damage type in the game has a very detailed explanation on how it works (HE and AP, including saturation, Fire Damage, Flood Damage etc) yet torpedoes are the only one without this. If we could get a detailed look at how it works, I'm sure the wiki would be most welcome of it. Thanks for your time regardless!

Well, there's always option 5; Give her AP bombs.... Oh wait, I think they just did;

Just to add a correction here; the HP didn't move from the Citadel. Citadel health is unified across all ships with citadels at 165,500. The area above the citadel (casement) increased in size due to the citadel being lowered, and since HP pools are typically based on volume, this value was increased. However this would then create an imbalance if HP was just added out of no-where, so HP had to be removed from other sections. The Bow, Stern and Superstructure lost a little bit of HP to compensate for the larger casement. So, using Montana as an example, this is what happened; 0.6.5 0.6.6 Superstructure 5,300 4,000 Bow 6,600 5,000 Stern 8,800 6,700 Casement 8,200 13,200 Citadel 165,500 165,500 So, we lost 1,300 from the Superstructure, 1,600 from the Bow and 2,100 from the Stern for a total loss of 5,000. And by how much did the Casement increase? Exactly 5,000. In effect, this means the Bow, Stern and Superstructure sections will saturate slightly quicker than previously, whilst the casement is the opposite and will saturate slower. The total HP is still the same, but more of the health is now in the slightly more protected area of the Casement. So... I guess you can call that a buff, although it'll be barely measurable in the long-run.

As far as I'm aware, that's not an actual crosshair that's used - it's just a bug with the current replay system. I use the default static crosshair when I play, but when I record the replay later on for YouTube, that's the same look I get.

As Spellfire said, it's not so much the ship's fault, but rather the player's use of the ship. Aside from that, lets break down your post; Well... no. Both the German 203mm and Russian 180mm have the exact same damage and fire%. Dmitri gets 12 barrels compared to Prinz Eugens 8, plus reloads them half a second faster. Mathematically speaking, Dmitri is the better fire starter - anything else is just confirmation bias. Never had a problem with it. Citadels on cruisers at 8-14km on a good angle. Penning upper belts of those juicy USN BB's, and often even the Germans and IJN. Behaves similarly to a 203mm, but not quite as good. Were you shooting in the right places? You just crossed the 32mm and 38mm threshold. That's BB bow and stern armour, most high tier cruiser decks and even the decks of USN BB's. You just gained so many more potential hit zones. I mean... technically you would be right, since Omaha is a typical Light Cruiser, built with the intent on hunting DD's. Dmitri starts to cross into Heavy Cruiser territory, which are comparably worse than their light cruiser brethren for DD hunting. You have great railgun arcs though, hitting and crippling a DD should be no problem. Well, that's easily proven as incorrect. 152mm HE shell is 2,200. Guess what? That's lower than 2,500. Not by much, granted. But saying a Chapayev shell does more than this shell is just not true under any circumstance. This just seems like a player issue rather than the ship. Nothing about this point directly relates to Dmitri. Don't know what more to say really. Never felt any problem with Dmitri. 96k average damage, higher than my Iowa and Izumo funnily enough...