Verblonde

I think I have it - by mistake, quite possibly - on my Kii, due to having the old version on there. I think I'll be taking it off though...

It basically isn't; as things stand, IFHE is pretty much a 'must have' on most light cruisers (as mentioned above, the obvious exceptions are RN and Italians, as neither gets HE). If you don't have the time/patience to work out exact penetration changes versus armour thickness that you'll encounter, the wiki can help - as you'll have seen, each ship has a section giving an indication of the usefulness of each captain skill for that ship. Whilst these can sometimes be a bit flaky here and there, generally a 'three star' rating will tell you quickly which ships probably need the skill. Be mindful that there are changes to IFHE incoming (although, as @thiextar points out, we'll most likely get a free respec when it launches), but in the meantime, make full use of a skill that - besides the cost - has very little in the way of downsides.

A couple of things you might find of interest (I'm not getting involved in the willy-waving): If you really care about people's stats (yours, mine, everyone who doesn't have hidden stats), you can go to their profile by clicking the name above their avatar on here, followed by clicking the obvious link that takes you to the WG stats page for that player (this is mine, for example:https://worldofwarships.eu/en/community/accounts/526131254-Verblonde/!/pvp/overview/). Another site that you may find interesting/useful is this one: https://wows-numbers.com/; I use it to keep track of how I'm doing (badly, usually), and to identify problem areas etc. The take-away from this is that everyone can see everyone else's stats, so if you think someone is not being entirely accurate, it's very easy to prove it and pretty much everyone on here knows this, so why bother with easily disprovable falsehoods? The other thing I would draw your attention to is how good most of the forum regulars are at the game (I'm an embarrassing exception to this); rather than picking fights, I would suggest listening to what some of them have to say - it'll help you improve your play (I've lost count of the number of helpful hints I've had from the forum), and hopefully reduce frustration levels.

My feeling is that it depends a bit on what you want from the things - if you want something that plays like a faster but squishier BB, perhaps give the US heavies a look (plus cruiser aficionados seem to think highly of the Des Moines - I'm only at T8 with this line, and suck at it). If you're after a different style of play, something with torps might be good; if you want them to be more 'last resort' things, have a look at the KM, or especially the Russians (the latter have the classic Russian 'railguns' which is helpful). Longer range torps means the IJN - you unlock 10 km ones at T5. Those are the obvious 'first picks' for torp lines. The RN CLs are excellent, but very fragile; maybe pick for line two or three (the recently launched CAs are too new to recommend - or not). The Italians are weird (SAP ammo), so probably leave them to last. What others have said about playing lots of different things is very valid though, especially if you've basically only played BBs; it'll give you a better handle on what everything is trying to do, and their vulnerabilities. It's worth giving DDs a lash too, for the same reasons.

This. Exactly where the yes/no border lies will be a matter for personal taste, but for me it's probably generally somewhere in the 60-65 knots range (depending on how good/how often needed the ships guns are). My only exception so far is Monaghan, as her guns are so pitiful with a torp build, you might as well take all the help you can get with her torps, even if the difference is marginal.

The first bit was what was making me think 'confirmation bias', or that the marginal change is something people will get used to soon enough. One aspect that might be more significant is when someone other than your target initially spots your torps - the reaction time reduction for the target in that situation might be more significant (increasing the further away from the target that the torps were actually spotted). I should mention that I'm mainly thinking about the average player you meet in randoms as target, rather than a typical forum unicum.

I bought London on day one - it's an interesting RN ship, and she was properly built and real and everything (Russians - take note), and has a worthwhile history. I've only messed around in Coop with mine so far, but I can't see anything about her that makes her particularly worse than most other same tier cruisers in the teeth of T8s, and the smoke/defensive hydro/heal combination should give her at least a fighting chance. Besides which, if miracles happen and Ops return, she'll be very useful for the T6 ones.

I've put it on the two premiums, to see what happens; I've only given them a couple of goes since, but initial impressions are promising. Although the differences are marginal, I find I make more consistent use of torps in most games, at least in the earlier phases when you're largely trying Not To Be Seen, making the mod arguably worthwhile. At the moment, in general (for DDs), I'm thinking in terms of not using the mod on anything that requires you to make extensive use of the guns (dakka Russians and IJN, RN and similar), and not using it on anything where horribly slow torps make the gains from the mod marginal (Black being an extreme example); pretty much everything else probably should get it eventually - I have a *lot* of DDs, so this exercise will require rather a lot of silver to complete (so, higher priority stuff is getting done first). One thing I'm wondering about: while I seem to be getting more torp hits with the module equipped, is it confirmation bias, or is it a real effect? If it is a real effect, is it just that people (and bots) simply haven't adjusted to the new zoomier torps yet...?

I have something like 10K battles in WOT, across NA and EU, with the bulk on NA; I also haven't really played seriously since Xmas 2018, apart from an occasional run-out (usually in the huge three-map mode - whatever that's called; I'm having a mental block). Some (highly subjective) comparisons: WOWS has (had, given the probably imminent death of Ops) infinitely better PvE content, making it the game to reach for when you aren't able to cope with playing against real people. WOT is far more about fast reflexes, and has far more instantaneous gameplay than WOWS; which is better is a matter of personal taste and energy levels. Basically, stuff happens a *lot* faster in WOT. WOWS doesn't have gold ammo; whilst I'm not a rabid anti-gold person in WOT (mainly because it's actually bought for silver these days, which anyone can get), I do prefer the WOWS approach, which leads on to: The differences between tiers, specifically with regard to lower tiers being able to do useful things against higher tiers, are definitely much better in WOWS; I think a lot of it is to do with the more open maps in WOWS - it's a lot less impractical to fight - say - T6 against a T8 in WOWS because you have a lot more room to manouevre, as opposed to the situation in WOT, where almost all the maps are essentially designed to force you to brawl (anyone want to guess what the vast majority of Russian tanks are best at?). The WOWS captain skills thing is probably easier to work with than the WOT equivalent, although I find the WOT approach a lot more interesting as there is much greater variety possible (it also reflects the fact that the crew in a two-man vehicle is going to need to compromise more than that in a five-man vehicle, in terms of skills/workload) e.g. cammo derived from the captain in WOWS has two settings, on or off, while that in WOT has off, plus all the permutations of crew numbers and levels of development in each (WOT does also have some perks which are on/off too). I find the WOWS approach to development/grinding to be less wearisome - WOT is a lot more grindy. The WOWS economy is a lot more forgiving too, especially with permaflage at T9-10; this doesn't exist in WOT (or didn't when I last looked), which makes T9-10 largely a cost sink, unless you're very good. I prefer the WOWS approach dramatically, but I can see that it doesn't discourage high tier potatoing (not that I see any less of it in WOT). I'm a year out of date on MM, but I think that the MM in WOWS is superior, although a lot of that feeds back to the thing about the differences between the tiers being less drastic than in WOT.

From the Dev Blog on facebook: ST, matchmaker changes. Earlier, we announced some upcoming changes to the matchmaker which are designed to reduce the number of aircraft carriers on tier IV-V battles. Today, we are ready to share the details of the updated matchmaker system, which is currently in testing. With the matchmaker update, special settings will be applied for all battles of all tiers, which will limit the maximum number of ships of a certain level and class: - A fixed limit is set on the number of ships of a certain class: -- With the change, the presence of aircraft carriers in battles will become more stable, but the number of battles with two aircraft carriers per team will be significantly reduced. We also plan to completely eliminate battles with three aircraft carriers, but this change requires additional testing and we will report on its results at a later date. -- The number of destroyers in a battle will not exceed 4 - 6 for tier V-X battles. For tier X battles, the maximum number of destroyers will be four, under normal circumstances of saturation of the matchmaker queue. -- The number of battleships in a battle will not exceed 5 - 6 for tier V-X battles. For tier X battles, the maximum number of battleships will be five, under normal circumstances of saturation of the matchmaker queue. -- The number of cruisers in a battle is not limited. - A limit is set on the number of ships 2 tiers lower than the tier of battle. This will avoid cases when the player, for example, is the only tier V in a battle dominated by tier VII ships. -- Combined with the previous matchmaker changes in Update 0.8.7 (https://worldofwarships.com/…/update-087-french-destroyer…/…), these settings will make battles more comfortable and give more opportunities for effective play on a lower tier ship against higher tier ships. Each tier of battle will have specific limits to class and tier which will change depending on the waiting time in the queue: the longer the waiting time, the softer the limitations become. This is done so that the first players in the matchmaking queue don't have to wait long periods of time for the limits to be met; while at the same time maintaining the maximum level of comfort of team compositions. As an example, see the settings below for tier V battles (battles involving tier IV-V ships) and tier X battles (battles involving tier VIII-X ships) (see the table below). The detailed settings of the matchmaker for each tier of battles will be announced later and may change during testing. Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary and subject to change.

I'm an idiot - fair enough! No doubt it won't be the last time either. Thanks for the clarification.

Are you certain? The following is from the patch notes: I may be entirely misunderstanding (quite likely), but 'fixed value' implies all torps get 1.8 km with the mod fitted...? Equally, the word 'increases' at the start implies that only increases are considered (and that would gel with the ongoing repeated nerfs to IJN torp DDs theme)...

As a (rubbish) DD main, I'm still trying to work out my view on the new upgrade, especially in conjunction with the 'zoomy torps' mod - if the spotting mod gets a lot of use, Asashio will be boned, but - on the other hand - a lot of the silver IJN torp boats may get a new lease of life. For example, I was just having a look at my (very dusty) Shima, after accidentally taking it into randoms with the stupid 20 km torps, an upgrade missing (Propulsion Mod 1), and a Coop fit-out - due to pressing the wrong button. The stupid torps become perhaps slightly less stupid with zoomy torps - 65 knots, and if the target has the new mod, the spotting distance drops from its current 2.5 km to 1.8 km (or more with the relevant skills etc.). Still don't intend carrying them, except by accident. The 12 km option now go at 70 knots (75 with TA, but the range drops to, I think, 9.6 km) As for the YOLOs - 80 knots!! That actually might make Shima vaguely interesting, if you're keen on hunting BBs...

Bought the basic London on day one, without the filler - if I then complete the directives (which I ought to), I get doubloons back, plus - I think - the alt pretty yellow cammo. Not too bothered about the cammo though, as I think I prefer the 'option 2' version of the standard permaflage.

100 economic signals (I forget which ones - xp, I think); I can live with that as they have the crucial benefit of not being ramming flags...!

FWIW I just tooled up my Asashio: with the new mod, and a TA captain, the torps show as doing 75 knots...!

I'd missed this as well; one quick rummage in the armory [sic] later and 30 secs radar run-time - crikey! I'll be using the 'zoomy torps' mod on anything in the way of DDs that relies on torps; I gave it a quick test in Coop on Benham and the KM premiums (on my alt), and I'm liking the smell of it so far...

Not insufficient, but rather adequate. Asashio is (or was) great fun to play, but one needs to be mindful of her strengths/weaknesses is all.

I haven't played Asashio much in ages (I basically stopped when the reework happened); I might give her a bit of a run-out and see just how bad (or not) things are with the new module out there. Against average players, I suspect the difference may be tolerable...

I try to never tell pork pies. Then they're idiots! (Last time I could be bothered to check, Asashio was my most played ship, but I suck so maybe I'm missing something)

Asashio's guns are decent, but I would stop a long way short of 'very powerful' - they're better than you would expect, but you're still going to get stomped by any self-respecting gunboat. Concealment is class-leading, but then so is that of all the Kagero 'sisters'. Basically, you play Asashio for the torps...

Whilst I'm aware it means that I'll pretty much always get rocks in future, in the interests of fairness I should point out that my Kami came out of a Super Container...

You'll forgive a little cynicism about this: if you had just removed it, there would be uproar (amongst those who care about Ops anyway, although that may be a commercially insignificant segment of your customer base); by doing it this way, you can hope that at least some people forget about it over time and don't blow a gasket right now. As I would imagine this thread demonstrates, a lot of forumites have emphatically not forgotten the 'lost' Ops and still want them back, *but* as we know, we're a tiny - albeit noisy - proportion of the overall customer base. The basic problem you have is one of trust, or rather the lack of it. As I said elsewhere, I believe you personally, but I know how corporate politics can work, so I don't trust those who are feeding you your source information; WG has a significant trust issue generally (which I would be really worried about, if I were one of your suits), after numerous mis-steps, so this is not unique to the matter of Ops. Still, I suppose - if anyone at WG cares about this loss of trust - then this Narai business *could* be a chance to do a small amount of work towards restoring it; I guess we'll see in a few patches time...

How you define 'worth' may be debatable, but - with the exception of Newport - the current T6 Ops are rather fun. You don't get the rewards that Narai can provide, but they're still worth doing. Strictly IMO, of course.

Apart from the nerf to DWTs etc. the new modules (Thursday?) might provide some scope for entertaining builds - for example, combining AA and Secondaries mods might make more manliness feasible for some ships (many of them laughably unsuitable for it)...