El2aZeR

Oh boy @Boris_MNE, you sure have your work cut out for you these days.

Which again is an issue in randoms that is insignificant in competitive. You are full AA spec and have a plethora of teammates that can deny plane spotting from outside their air detectability. Attempting to just spot you equals massive plane losses, striking anything is practically unheard of. Might ofc still be worthwhile for the CV but it doesn't even get close to the scenario you describe. Please don't try to apply things you've experienced in randoms to a competitive setting. I played 3 matches (2 practice + 1 official) in the last KotS as a stand-in. In all matches I practically ran out of strike planes halfway through the match (while fighters are obviously too busy defending, cycling or often too precious to waste on spotting). I also managed a SINGLE successful strike across all three matches. It wasn't even impactful, I was just picking up scraps in a match that was already won. In a competitive setting the job of a CV is to provide bursts of spotting information by suiciding planes while attempting to deny it with fighters. I believe the longest I managed to spot a DD was for 30 seconds with all strike planes (= 22 planes) lost. And that was WITHOUT fighter interference. From a pure gameplay standpoint it's the most boring thing ever, it's only enjoyable due to the team based nature of the match (which isn't a bad thing, really).

Not that I disagree with your point, but how do you rush full broadside? Like this?

Isn't that interesting, Mr. <60% solo WR.

Again, an issue with player numbers and not actual function. Including CVs would prevent smaller clans and any clan without a skilled CV player from playing. Personally I couldn't care less about the lack of CVs in CBs as I don't play CBs anyway. In fact, from a CV perspective I would much prefer it if they stay out of it so the few actually skilled players will continue to neuter themselves and not take DFAA or any AA skills into randoms.

Considering everyone and their mother would run AA spec, not really? This isn't randoms we're talking about, you know a CV is going to be in the match and you're expected to work together. If you have the better surface team but an inferior CV player you actually have a very high chance to take the match. If your surface teams are equal and the enemy has the better CV player, it's only fair that they win. Same would apply if you had a less skilled player in any other class. CVs would work in any format 9vs9+. The issue is more with player numbers than anything else. Players that actually understand how to play CVs are few and far in between, players who know how to play them in a competitive setting are almost non-existent. It'd be a constant struggle to try to get one of the few high level CV players left to join you, a situation that can easily see bribery in the most extreme cases (doubloons, premium time and ships can all be gifted after all). Obviously WG wanted to avoid such a mess. Anyhow, aren't current CBs a bit of a farce anyway considering WG is planning to introduce reworked CVs into it, thus quite possibly throwing the entire meta on its head?

Forgot to take a screenshot of it, but yesterday a teammate called me a noob because I was incapable of hitting the citadel of an enemy Kurfürst at close range. I guess we're all noobs then? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Good stuff about Iowa: - decent armor when angled - one of the fastest BBs - very stealthy (specializing into concealment is highly recommended) - most accurate BB at mid/close range with the USN accuracy upgrade - guns hit like a truck and good gun handling - decent stock AA Bad stuff about Iowa: - maneuverability is bad (not exactly a rarity among high tier BBs tho) - one of the more vulnerable BBs to HE shells - AA needs specialization to be a true deterrent to same or higher tier CVs (although that too can be said about almost all high tier AA) - AA is concentrated in fragile mid and close range mounts which can be easily taken out by HE spam - very large - bad armor + somewhat vulnerable citadel when broadside - huge superstructure vulnerable to AP penetrations - Yamato sisters easily overmatch your extremities - bad torp protection In terms of playstyle Iowa is a mid range ninja so to speak. You sit at anywhere between your min concealment and 14-15km and sling salvos at anything that dares to overextend in your presence. This ensures that you'll vanish between every salvo so that you do not draw unwanted attention. Iowa is not particularly suited to tanking shells due to her drawbacks as described above. That however doesn't mean you can't do it, just keep in mind that you're more fragile than some other BBs. For further reading I recommend this: http://shipcomrade.com/?p=739 and this video: Those are a bit outdated, but I believe the only major change to the Iowa since those were made was the lowering of her citadel (which now sits at the waterline instead of extending halfway up her belt armor), giving her much more leeway when showing broadside. Still not a good idea, but you usually don't run in danger of being oneshot anymore (which depending on how you view it is either a good or a bad thing). Generally speaking Iowa is an extremely effective ship when played right, but it's not the easiest of tasks to accomplish.

Oh no, BBs don't possess any kind of counterplay against their counter class. Bugger.

COMRADE @Boris_MNE, YOUR TIME HAS COME! (Unless you were sent to gulag again for your last thread?)

Or maybe they'll git gud and start using WASD.

Still picking signals out of habit. Will switch if I can force myself to do so.

Except that getting to your opponents broadside would always be more effective if you'd just learn to angle with your belt like you would angle against a Yamato/Musashi nowadays. Except that's not the case at all. The very first goals and announcements reflect this quite handily. The current CV prototype is necessary to make them work on consoles. There is no reason to spend time on something you will have to redo anyway, hence why work on the CV rework has been slow. The time in the last few years was spent on beaurocratics and to port the game, now they can actually work on and finalize the mechanics. And before anyone calls bull on that, WG practically admitted it in a recent Q&A. So basically Shima is underpowered and completely useless in the face of other DDs. That's like saying the Giulio is fine because you can still play against her and the Giulio player just doesn't want to put in any effort. While I like a challenge, I don't like to have literally zero reliability to influence the battle. Hence why I play Enterprise instead of Lex e.g. Because whiny BBabies will remain whiny BBabies. @Saiyko, how far along are you with your song? Because it is urgently needed here. BBs aren't overpowered in terms of game influence. They're overpowered in terms of risk-reward and the overall design of the game. It's too easy to deal damage even if you misaim as dispersion ironically helps you in this regard, they take too much time to take down even if they misplay horribly and they have too many qualities that promote and even necessitate stale and static play. Not to mention they get more and more tools to deal with their supposed counters.

Heh, that reminds me, anyone remember when WG actually tried to address that and reduced all bow armor to 25mm? The ONE ING TIME they shouldn't have listened to all the whiners out there, they did. CVs falling further and further into obscurity? WG didn't care. Shima nerfed so hard she nowadays spends her days auto-losing games for her teams? WG didn't care. HE and fire chance nerfed hard so that whiny BBs can survive longer? WG didn't care. Low tier CV manual drop removed, spawning an entire generation of idiot CVs? WG didn't care. Stupid amounts of BBs that can't be citadeled in any reliable fashion? WG didn't care. Belfast, GZ, Missouri, Giulio and every broken or overpowered ship ever released? WG didn't care. But the ONE TIME they are on the right track, the ONE TIME they shouldn't have cared, they ofc did. Go figure.

Learn which ships have good AA and which are useless to defend you. Stick to those that have good AA. Also ask for fighter cover, sometimes your CV teammate is friendly enough to provide it. A CV is primarily defeated by preventing him from attacking, not by doing something when they're already attacking. However you can also mitigate damage a lot by turning into TBs as soon as they appear. Do not wait until the torps are already in the water, because that's way too late. Stealth firing has been gone from the game for quite some time. If you have a clear line of sight, you will see that cruiser firing at you. As a KM BB you have the best armor scheme against HE shells, so they don't bother you too much. Do not extinguish a single fire. Always wait for at least two to get the maximum effectiveness out of your DCP. Know when you should start repairing. If you do that HE spam and fires will barely even register on your threat scale. There is not a single ship at close range which has belt armor that can withstand BB AP shells when full broadside regardless of tier. What you experience is most likely due to angling. Angling increases the effective thickness of your belt armor and causes AP shells to bounce off at higher angles. The best way to tank in a higher tier KM BB is to go bow on to a ship firing AP at you, but as a KM BB you don't want to do that because you're cutting your firepower dramatically. Instead learn to angle with your belt, swing your stern out after your enemy fires a salvo to use your back turrets then turn back into your enemy so you are more likely to cause bounces on his salvo. Also lets your secondaries fire for maximum effect. If you encounter a ship that is actively angling, aim for the superstructure instead.

Except that it allowed my team to take two other caps, crush the other half of the enemy team and flank those that were focused on me, killing them too. Me camping bow on was a game winning play. I also killed the DM and chunked both the Hinden and the Wooster, ending up close to the top of the scoreboard, so I made personal gains, too. And I literally took my left hand off of my keyboard to grab a drink while doing that. Camping in high tier BBs is much easier and rewarding than it is in low/mid-tiers, hence why it is so prevalent. There is exactly one class that can actually punish such plays on a consistent basis. It's also the least played and most hated class in the game. Even if that Worchester didn't have IFHE, that still leaves fires, superstructure damage and two other rapid firing cruisers. Even in such circumstances I shouldn't have lasted almost a quarter of the match duration. As for RN BBs, for their designed role I actually believe they work rather well. The problem with RN BBs lies not in the fact that they punish static gameplay.

Eh, who knows? Once bombed a Worchester into oblivion with AP bombs, then asked why he didn't use DFAA. The answer? "I picked hydro, not DFAA." Then was actually surprised when everyone told him he has both DFAA and hydro. Let that sink in for a moment.

Have you considered that low/mid-tier matches are more dynamic precisely because you can't pull the you can do in high tiers? Ironically the game gets easier for BBs the higher you progress. You become capable of bow camping, your armor scheme laughs in the face of AP shells that are unlikely to ever reach your citadel (Yamato sisters being the sole exception) and your guns become capable of blowing everything that is not a BB out of the water with some decent consistency while your massive range allows you to comfortably sit in the back line while doing so. In low/mid-tiers your comparatively low gun range forces you to close the distance, your actually vulnerable citadel makes you want to keep your maneuverability and your bow that can be overmatched means bow camping is entirely taboo. Low/Mid-tier matches are more punishing for BBs who try to camp, hence why low/mid-tier matches are more dynamic.

So what if "making mistakes" was equal to "camp bow on like an idiot and laugh as all damage you take is insignificant"? Static gameplay is prevalent in high tiers because it is rewarded, not punished. If you were simply incapable of camping bow on, you wouldn't do it. See low/mid-tiers for a working example. All but the BBs who ofc continued to sling AP at me. Ironically did more damage than HE spam. Yeah, this pretty much. Still pure damage alone should've taken me out well before the 3 minute mark, yet there I stood, laughing in their faces. Nah, I've got a partial AA spec running on my captain with only SI for the extra heal I believe. Slotted the reduced fire duration upgrade too I think but that's pretty much it.

Actually I can extend matches in a CV far easier than in any other class. I just deliberately leave a (non-essential) teammate without air cover or spotting/striking support and let him die. I do that almost every match at this point. Often allows me to get caps, too. But the entire reason why I can (and quite frankly have to) do that is because the match is often decided within the first few minutes. Heck, sometimes before the match even starts by e.g. pitting 3 Shimas against a Gearing, a Z-52 and a Grozo (yes, that happened). On the contrary BBs aren't vulnerable enough to promote dynamic gameplay. If you could get spammed down within a minute by HE fire you wouldn't be making yourself an easy target and camp bow on the entire time. I recently sat in a crossfire between a Worchester, a DM and a Hindenburg + two BBs in my Monty (which if you may remember is one of the more vulnerable BBs to HE spam). It took all of those ships almost 5 minutes to kill me, at which point my team was surprisingly not useless, took the other two caps, flanked all of those focused on me hard and won the game. If THIS is "vulnerable to HE and fire" to you, I frankly don't want to know what your definition of tanky is. Also my Monty isn't remotely full survivability spec. Haven't even taken FP on her.

*cough* Flying squirrel. *cough*

Nah, pretty much exclusively high tier. Not only CVs either. ...they are? Haven't checked, I hate that ship.

Oh boy. @Saiyko I think this is the moment you need to start writing that song. :D Seriously though, the vast majority of the games we played in the last few months were literally decided within the first few minutes.

*laughs in Fletcher/Gearing* Seriously, why anyone would want to play Shima nowadays is beyond me. Unless they change her torps to something actually useful Shima will remain in the shadow of other DDs.

Regardless of your enjoyment of T10, a total of 113 games isn't much of a benchmark to judge whether you're really doing poorly or not. You certainly don't seem to be lacking experience however. If you're looking to improve, post a replay and ask for help. Maybe you're doing everything right and you're just getting ed by RNGesus. Who knows? Can't really tell much from those numbers yet, really. Don't let frustration dissuade you from playing T10. Stop playing T10 when you start thinking it's a chore or that you'd rather do something else. Frustration is part of competition, always has been, always will be, BUT don't force yourself to play.