Verblonde

A reminder for the old lags: if you have any of the old 'For meritorious service' cammo (now unavailable), it's well worth saving them for supership use - if you have any interest - due to the 50% off service cost (it also boosts credit earnings too). A single data point, but I emerged from an entirely awful Coop game in Yamigiri earlier slightly in the black, using this cammo. That was running premium account, no signals, and doing very little damage (one kill with guns, and I somehow managed not to get a single torp hit!) - the sort of battle I would expect to lose credits in if playing a silver T9 with permaflage.

BTW returning briefly to the subject of the economy on T11s: I picked up Super-Shima (Yamagiri) earlier, because it's the only one that even remotely interests me, and gave her a run-out in Coop to get a feel for her. Anyway, I remembered that 'Meritorious Service' (or whatever it's called) one-use cammo that you used to get on your birthday (or was it an anniversary of some sort?) - the white one that, amongst other things, halves the service cost. This will mostly apply to old lags, but if you have any (and have the slightest interest in ever playing superships), save them for supership use only. As we know, WG withdrew them a while ago (any guesses why), so any that you have are all that you'll get*. The aforementioned Coop battle was pretty poor results-wise (mainly because I was experimenting, rather than playing seriously) - I think I only got one kill, and that was with the guns. Using the cammo, I still made a very small silver profit, despite being pretty dreadful (using premium account, but no signals - only the cammo). So, this is a reminder about that particular cammo; it makes superships economically stay in the black (based on one data point). *Until WG feel the 'vodka and negotiable affection' fund is running low, and reintroduce them for money...

I was just about to reach for that very gif...!

I unequivocally don't agree (in case there was any doubt): Players who don't have sufficient experience will be unable to play superships properly, and will be a liability to their team-mates. Players who don't have sufficient experience will also be unable to afford to play superships, so bankrupting their accounts, or making them spend real money. *No-one* should be given a free supership once they're released fully, and they probably shouldn't have been given them free for testing either: the majority of people playing superships appear to be hopeless (and/or so out of their depth the fish have lights on their heads), which means much of the data about balance and effectiveness is probably deeply suspect...

Look on the bright side: this sort of player on the opposing team is effectively an instant kill for your side and/or damage/xp pinata; playing a T11, he represents maximum rewards when you tear him a new posterior. Admittedly, there's a 50% chance he'll be on your side...

As of now (speaking as a DD main): Play at antisocial hours; there seem to be fewer submarines around then. Report anyone playing submarines in PvP, and then stop playing when you run out of reports (better for the blood pressure to stop before frustration levels get too high). Play modes without submarines, if possible. Play other things (I'm a few hours into my second play-through of Tiny Tina at the moment)... Spend less: if WG see an incontrovertible correlation between submarines and a drop in spending, it's possible they may re-think; that said, I think it unlikely, they seem to be under a major delusion apropos the popularity of submarines, to judge from the attempted gaslighting we're seeing. Either way, still spend less - it'll be less annoying if submarines continue as is; you'll have wasted less money.

Multiple fighters in the air at once? One from the CV herself, and the others from strikes...? Plus, returning strike components? The icons do look funny though...? I see different icons for different plane types on my display - those look like how I see spotters (I'm running vanilla though)...

This isn't about you; in case it escaped your notice this is multi-player game. This means that your actions (in PvP anyway) impact other people. I don't care how 'comfortable' you feel in Hannover, you are not good enough to hold your own, therefore to continue to play her as you are would be breath-takingly inconsiderate and selfish. Do what you like in Coop, of course; that mode doesn't matter.

Wasn't she a bit of a monster back when AA had a purpose? Fond memories from that era, perhaps?

I can't cruiser for toffee, so my recommendations would be deeply flawed (although I quite liked Donskoi and Ibuki); instead a question: is there any consensus yet on the impact that the superships will have on the desirability of T9 cruisers in general? I believe they'll face each other?

Presumably, it's WG's view that only the players have to write lines; we have to write something like 'submarines should not be in the game with DCP-mitigated homing' a hundred times each before it warrants a response. That response - naturally - will be "stop complaining, the silent majority are delighted with things as they are, and tell us what's wrong with submarines..."

You don't; you have exactly the same luck as everyone else does i.e. sometimes MM will work in your favour, and sometimes it won't. Whilst some of the reactions on here may be slightly short on tact in places, they aren't wrong; if you have a look here, you'll see a breakdown of your stats by tiers, ship types and so on: https://wows-numbers.com/player/508761912,tigermarnickfelh/ So what? So, if you're playing PvP, your actions have an impact on other people; if you play poorly, it can put your team - effectively - a man down before the game even begins. The impact is perhaps marginally less in BBs, which tend to be less influential in non-expert hands (assuming you're close enough to be shot at, at the very least you're a damage sponge), but the principle stands. Basically, if you go into a PvP game where you can't hack it you are actively sabotaging your team, and that is a Richard move. I like to think that most people are decent, and don't want to over their fellow man (possibly delusional, I'm aware), but let's imagine you are a cat-shaving sociopath, and don't care about shafting your team-mates; it's *still* not in your interests to get a supership until you're competent to use it. If you haven't read up on them properly yet, the whole point of these things is to be a credit-sink i.e. you will lose silver every time (or almost every time) you play after the full release. This means, you'll run out of silver on your account fairly rapidly, and then either have to pay money, or play low tiers anyway (to fund T11). At time of writing, you have no (zero) T9 or T10 Random battles under your belt. Nada. Not a sausage. You have 147 at T8, and fewer than a hundred from T5-T7 combined. This isn't about stat-shaming, but rather about pointing out that you are woefully short of the experience/skill-set needed to fight, survive, and perform adequately in a supership. You are going to get your posterior handed to you if you play superships: yes, you have a big, powerful ship, but then so does everyone else, *and* they'll probably be far more proficient in them, and have far better captains. Realistically, you have two choices: give up (hint: don't), or go back to the tiers where you'd got to playing sensibly (looks like T4-5 at the moment), and acquire the skill-set you need in the usual way. Play all classes (I live for BB drivers who've never played DDs for example - they're easy to take to the cleaners; the ones that know what I'm trying to do to them much less so), and if you like Hannover play the original German BB line - T8 plus are basically smaller Hannovers, T7 is fun (and good for Narai), and T6 is pretty good for the T6 Ops. If you *really* want Hannover, by the time you've ground out three silver T10s, you'll probably have the skill-set to not be a liability in her. Not hate; simply trying to help. You will have a lot more fun if you are at least on par with typical players; no-one expects everyone to be a unicum (everyone being so is a statistical impossibility, I think), but *everyone* has more fun when a higher proportion of players have at least a basic understanding of how the game works.

I assumed that this would be the case with the commanders when the things got their full release (basically, it's the same sketch as with early release ships); WG will never knowingly pass up the chance at a credit/xp sink and/or the chance to get people to pay money (depending on your choice of methodology). Personally, my reaction is - essentially - 'meh': I have no interest in the bulk of the superships (I might pick up super-Shima at some point, if I can be bothered), and if I did, I have enough 21 pointers to bump a new captain up to a sensible level fairly quickly...

Exactly. This pretty much applies to all of them too, or at least the ones I've played (in Coop/Ops) i.e. all of them apart from the T10, unless there's a supersh*t that I've missed... Despite the mess a well played one can make of your DD, I object less the Russians (game-play wise anyway) than the other CVs, almost entirely because the spotting threat they represent is rather more manageable.

Daily Bounce thinks both, but we'll have to wait for confirmation until Friday, I imagine...?

Pretty much this; assuming I have another lack of self-control, mine will permanently live in Coop... Mind you, with submarines in Randoms now, my enthusiasm for Randoms has dropped dramatically lately anyway.

If anyone is interested, this is Daily Bounce on the subject: https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-final-review-u-s-tier-viii-premium-aicraft-carrier-hornet/ "The truth is that… I can’t really call her bad but at the same time, I can’t really recommend her. Of course, I’m sure that people will get her on day one because of how important she was historically but for pure gameplay… yeah, she is far from what her big sister can do." So, apparently not a monster; that's no bad thing if we must have CVs in the game...?

Aye, I don't intent biting any further - it would be the equivalent to reacting to "your an idiot" posts...!

This mostly concurs with my experience as a target: non-Russian CVs present a much greater spotting threat, because they don't have the 'one and done' attack that the Russians do.

Look at you coming on here with your fancy logic and rational thought processes...!

You're absolutely right: there isn't a *rational* reason for me to want Hornet; for a start, I'll almost certainly never play it in 'proper' game modes. Depending on how unusual my reaction is, it might provide a salutary lesson for WG though: a proper historical ship that I'll never even play properly, and I'm interested - quite a contrast with my reaction to all manner of made up stuff, which I might occasionally play properly, and can be summarised as 'meh'...

Me too, but *Mitchells*! (I need to get out more) I've had a soft spot for Mitchells since I got given a kit for one when I was a kid... As a complete aside, the local aircraft museum has a rather splendid flying one (apparently with a rather laudable approach to 'moar dakka'):

It's entirely irrational, but I'm actually quite stoked about this; despite the fact I almost never play CVs against real people, the ship's history (and the fact she has actual Mitchells parked on the deck) makes this ship far more interesting than the fictitious stuff we more usually see...

I detect a L2P issue here... If you're struggling to deal with DDs, I suggest playing some of them; assuming you learn to play them semi-competently, your results against them will improve dramatically. Unless the DD is very skilled/lucky, consistent hits with torps are generally only achieved against the rather more clueless.

Ah, I see what you're up to here: the hope is that people will eventually get bored with explaining over and over again what is wrong with submarines (from my perspective it's *still* the homing being mitigated by DCP, and many ships having zero counterplay), and stop complaining? How many times do WG need this stuff explained? Games with submarines in are almost universally (on here anyway) agreed to be less fun than those without; rather than - effectively - making people write lines (the computer gaming equivalent of "I must not forget my PE kit. I must not forget..."), how about actually making a serious effort to fix the problems? Incidentally, trying to gaslight people that everything is splendid isn't fixing the problems...