Verblonde

I'm confused: what will actually happen with captains left in the tech tree RN DDs when the update happens? e.g. if I leave my Gallant captain (say) in Jervis, will he retrain to Jervis, or stay trained to Gallant when the update is applied?

@Leo_Apollo11 was just on rather a 'special' team, with me (me no doubt adding to the special), and an appalling camping Conq, amongst others. Not a game to write epic ballads about... Oh, and thanks to @Nautical_Metaphor for baby-sitting me through an Op earlier - much appreciated!

Not necessarily - all WG would need to do is lift the lines of code from the upcoming dual-nation hockey guy captain, and apply them to RN/Commonwealth captains, such that those nations replace US/Russia... Get that done, and (I suspect) the money would roll in from people who avoided Commonwealth premiums thus far because of the captain training issue...

I don't believe they make any difference at all; in fact, in the specific case of WOT, you could make a case for marginal game improvement - for every black 'Mutz' in the game, I'm not having to have my vision offended by the 'seagull poo' pattern one...!

If I'd had more time available, I would have given the mode a try; as it was, I didn't have spare time available to mess about in a mode that didn't contribute to mission progress...

As another WOT convert, I miss being able to do this too...

I'm getting a monumental case of deja-vu here: this row is almost identical to the one we had with WOT when they pulled the same stunt there. A couple of years on, it didn't do any harm, and (I think) everyone knows they're the same thing (technically, with marginal % stats variation, because in WOT the black cammo is baked in). I might even buy one, if they do what they did in WOT i.e. Lots of cheapness on the black version, if you already have the vanilla one - daily doubles mount up pretty swiftly (although I would rather do that with actually different premiums, given the choice).

I know all about Dresden; the only reason it's not a war-crime is that it hadn't been specified as such at the time (we also did the same in Hamburg, but not 'deliberately') - I don't see how that's any different to what all the other major combatants were doing in WW2 though. I'm at work, so can't read the second link in detail, but it appears to be as much a definition of genocide, as anything, and not an example of Britain doing it during WW2; as far as I'm aware, we didn't commit genocide during WW2 (also, the article appears to be talking about the period since 1948, but I may have missed a key part). I think 'concentration camp' for where the Jewish refugees were put is a little strong (compared to the original camps, during the Boer War, and especially the Nazi ones), but "Conditions in the camps were very harsh, with poor sanitation, over-crowding, lack of privacy, and shortage of clean water being the main complaints.[6] The local Joint director Morris Laub considered that the German prisoners of war housed in adjacent camps were treated better." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_internment_camps) Clearly, not our finest hour, but par for the course for the time. Human internment was pretty widespread across all the combatants (and far worse); Britain was better than most, and I don't think it fair to conflate internment with concentration camps. That last link is very interesting - thank you - I didn't know about this. A pertinent extract: "One of the destroyed vessels—the U.S. Liberty ship John Harvey—had been carrying a secret cargo of 2000 M47A1 mustard gas bombs, each holding 60–70 lb (27–32 kg) of the agent. According to Royal Navy historian Stephen Roskill, this cargo had been sent to Europe for potential retaliatory use if Germany carried out its threatened use of chemical warfare in Italy." I do think there is a significant difference between being prepared to retaliate with chemical weapons in the event of them being used against us, and gearing up to use them preemptively (is there any evidence for the latter) though. If, after all that, I have a point, it's that we (the British) have done many monstrous things over the centuries; I don't believe it is terribly helpful to over-egg our monstrousness (as it were) on occasions where we were 'only' acting according to the norms of the time, and doing so risks diminishing the significance of those times when we really did act beyond the pale. Oh yes - no evidence of biological warfare? I know we prepared for it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island), but I don't believe we did it to anybody in WW2?

Can you provide any sources, for this lot in particular: Especially, genocide, concentration camps, and chemical/biological weapon use.

I imagine it'll be announced late next week...? For comparison, this thread covers last year's event (I couldn't find the relevant news story apropos contents):

I would, but there is nothing to read - just some video. Please, can we have at least a precis of the salient points in text form, for those of us who prefer to read?

Oh yeah, something else: although not directly relevant to the question, if you're playing a lot of DDs, you'll actually want to not fire your guns a lot of the time - as you'll have seen from the mini-map (being a WOT alum, I imagine you've already made it bigger), when you fire, your visibility balloons hugely. Same as with lights in WOT: you fire, you get spotted, you die (sometimes, anyway). Happily, with DDs, you always (?) have torps, and they often have a longer range than you can be spotted from - when this happy occurrence happens, use torps; they won't give you away as much.

There are similarities - I find it a bit like trying to hit moving light tanks with a KV-2 (but with lots of guns)! Lead is much more significant in WOWS, but you generally don't have to worry about up/down - everything you're shooting at in WOWS as on the same basic level... If you've messed around a lot with the howitzer type derps in WOT, you've got the basic idea of using guns in WOWS.

@OnceBittenTwiceShy you may find this video of use:

Whilst I'll be mainly playing DDs in Ranked, I might be tempted to give Furry Taco a run-out too - as well as the guns, the torps are rather nice (decent range, and quite doable firing arcs)...

My feeling on Dunkirk is that the difficulty is rather too tied to which ships you pick: if you have at least one or two Sims, you're more or less home free (assuming they have at least a bit of AA building applied), whereas less optimal choices make it a lot harder. I never played the first iteration (when it was only RN DDs - I think), but it would be *much* harder without any (relative) AA monsters. The rest of the Ops vary from stupid hard (after tweaks), to about right - assuming 'average' players. I tend to agree with those that suggest the ideal state of affairs would be to have easy and hard modes for each, with suitably adjusted rewards for the hard mode...

I suspect you may be in a minority!

FWIW the WOT clan badge is a freebie...

FWIW the Arsenal currently says that new coupons will be available on the 18th (Thursday of next week), so that will presumably coincide with the launch of the new patch.

No, I am happy with a ghost ship and less fewer options for my ships!

Not in quite the same way: sub torp tubes align (more or less) with the long axis of the boat; meanwhile, the fixed tubes we're talking about are (usually) at right angles. Essentially, you're right though. I still think that fixed torp tubes on surface vessels would be a lot of work, for very little gain though. We did this topic to death though, back with those pro-Hood nutters several months ago; apart from the crazies, the consensus was 'nah'.

This. Put far better than I could manage!

I was under the impression that only trainable torp launchers were going to be represented in game, as they were the only (vaguely) effective ones; in the case of subs, the entire boat is essentially one trainable launcher. Quite apart from their limited utility, if fixed torp tubes were introduced, you'd be looking at an awful lot of re-balancing - for the work involved, the gain would be marginal at best, and that time could be far more usefully used for something else.

I wouldn't argue with regular Ranked, but this version is a mode primarily for newbies (allegedly), so it's a bit unsporting for old lags (even potatoes like me) to simply reach for only their most OP ships/captains. I suspect I'll exhibit a lack of moral fibre and break out the Kamikaze/19 point captain at some point though...

How on earth does Asashio get a 52% WR in Ranked? It's pretty awful for that mode...