El2aZeR

They have been consistently doing so for the last two years, what makes you think that's going to change? Applying game design knowledge to what WG is doing has failed ages ago.

What are you smoking and can I have some?

They did. Removal of stealth fire was a planned change at that point, which is why KM DDs were made unable to do so specifically. Also guess why SF suddenly became a problem when it was perfectly fine before? Because the main spotter class died out. But in classic WG fashion they completely ignored the actual problem at hand.

Well, if you're losing, someone else must be winning, right? Like me e.g. On a more serious note, standards of play have been falling since forever, with WG putting no real effort at all into fixing this. And I highly doubt that'll change anytime soon.

1. Play on the toilet. 2. Eat while you play. 3. Sleep is for the weak. 4. To work is to lose. Thus I see nothing wrong with this. All 100% legit. Git gud scrub. (Sorry for all the disgusting images I'm sure I've filled your head with.)

A surrender option is dumb, I agree. However not letting the game continue beyond a certain point when ending early doesn't benefit anyone left to play out the game. That could be easily rectified by, for example, introducing the following: - if a team achieves the objective (either 1000 cap points or reducing the opponents points to 0) before the ~10 minute mark, the losing team is placed into a rout (or encirclement or whatever you want to call it), adding an additional ~5 minutes to the game time - the winning team will now win regardless of how the battle proceeds and enjoy a fair bonus to their earnings - the losing team now has the chance to either 1. Escape through a part of the map border (either fixed towards the enemy spawn or dynamic depending on the position of the winning team, placing it near the highest relative concentration of ships) 2. Kill all enemy ships - a ship on the losing team that escapes gets their repair costs cut by ~20% as well as increasing the earnings of their team by a bit - if all the ships on the winning team get destroyed earnings for the losing team will be as if they had won (or perhaps a bit lower) This would place both teams in a situation from which they can benefit from. It would also (hopefully) lead to a direct confrontation between the remaining vessels instead of the run-&-hide-fests we usually get in roflstomp matches.

1. Spot Fletch early with TBs, get chased off by fighters, if Kagero still decides to go in he's an idiot you wouldn't be able to save anyway 2. Spot Fletch when he is going to kill Kagero, use fighters to strafe him, obviously lose said fighters, Fletcher is still going to kill Kagero and you've lost air superiority permanently to a skilled enemy CV as losing 1 squad for free will usually do that Yeah, I prefer scenario 1.

When someone calls CVs overpowered.

Isn't the listed turning circle just the minimum one achievable without throwing drift (DORIFTO *eurobeat intensifies*) into the mix? So yeah, it would make sense that you have a wider turning circle when going full speed.

Hardly. I mean okay, I would (and have in the past) crush this guy for sure, but that wouldn't win me the match. The ability to counterplay a CV exists for surface vessels, whether people use them or not isn't a problem with CVs.

And if you commit fighters you lose air superiority instead, perhaps even permanently, as the enemy CV will capitalize on that opportunity if he's smart. Is that really preferable?

Position of the icon is averaged from the models of the fighters, but the actual squad itself is just a dot on the map, the position of which you cannot see and have to develop a feeling for. There are plenty of times when strafing that the icon lags far behind the actual position. Place a single move command first, not an attack command (not multiple move commands, though, as that will slow them down). Attack commands do not work when the enemy is strafing out. Reengage only when you're sure your fighters have broken out of the "stun".

It's neither. You're simply wrong about the whole delay thing. Fighters will engage into strafing instantly if you've got the distance right. Attack commands will not work when your enemy is strafing out. Move commands however will. To follow an enemy squad that is strafing out simply place a move command in the same direction then reengage.

Follow the link, then It will then expand to show you this: Detection range is found in the third column from the right.

Except that doesn't happen. I can just wait for you to strafe my DD then kill you, giving me immediate air superiority even if I started TBs first, an advantage I will not let go of for the rest of the match. You don't need to commit TBs if there is enemy air cover or DFAA, you can just pull back and move up with your fighters with nothing gained, nothing lost. So yeah, in the worst case scenario you've lost air superiority permanently for the rest of the match, just because you've wasted your fighters on something that was hardly worthwhile.

I mean, I don't like them either but I sure ain't gonna complain about them if someone wants to buy and use them.

Fighters will catch up to TBs rather quickly, so if you've launched TBs first you can get two scenarios: 1. Enemy CV chose to go somewhere else or made the mistake of launching both TBs and DBs before fighters = free opening strike on whatever is stupid enough to go out of position shortly after the start of the match. 2. Enemy CV launched TBs then fighters or fighters first and meets you = pull back TBs, move up with fighters. Nothing lost, nothing gained, play out the rest of the match accordingly. Launch fighters first on the other hand and scenario 1 simply doesn't happen. You'll lose the potential opportunity for an opening strike while gaining nothing. Thus launching TBs first is the best option, followed up by fighters then DBs. Worst thing you can do is launching all bombers before fighters, fighters first isn't bad but doesn't benefit you either. I, too, launched fighters first for the longest time until I realized TBs first is superior. You will still immediately be on the backfoot when it comes to air control. I don't see why you should risk that when you can just go with TBs. Either you deal a big chunk of damage to the enemy DD, outright kill him or at the very least you will force him off the cap with nothing lost on your part. Wasting your fighters on that and putting yourself at an immediate disadvantage would hardly be worth it, especially when there is such a stellar alternative.

Yeah, give us the patchnotes about that please. Any more lies you want to spread around? Said the guy who brought nothing to the discussion but insults and lies while not knowing some of the most basic game mechanics. But hey, attempting to take the high road will surely make you look better when you've failed on every other front!

Did you unlock the new planes and slotted appropriate upgrades and captain skills yet?

Of course, but sadly not everyone knows that. Easy, haul your aft towards your nearest allies as soon as you spot aircraft moving towards your position. Generally speaking you should always be within "escaping" distance of your allies to minimize risks while maximizing game impact (since you will also be able to spot enemy ships and torps for your teammates). Activate DFAA if necessary. Ofc if you're completely out of position you can attempt to juke the enemy CV via smoke. Lay down smoke, move forward at 1/4 speed. Wait around 5 seconds after you've faded and go full speed again. The enemy CV might've tried to drop you in your smoke under the assumption that you've gone stationary. And if he doesn't fall for it, yeah, you die. That's fine, though. No class should be independent from the team, after all.

And why would you need to do that when TBs service faster anyway? Just launch TBs first and go for an early kill, you don't need fighters to pick up an additional role they don't need. Besides, strafe DDs and put myself at an early disadvantage when I inevitably lose a fighter or two while doing so? No thanks.

Deal with DFAA DDs with the following method (if they're alone and cannot run for backup, you also need to have secured air superiority first to prevent interference from enemy fighters): 1. Spot with fighters -> if they activate DFAA, retreat, wait ~25 seconds and then attack with everything. If they don't, go to 2. 2. Attack with DBs -> if they activate DFAA, same as above, if they don't, stagger your DB attacks so he needs to waste DCP, then consider 3. 3. Are there friendlies close? If yes, keep him spotted with an empty DB squad for your allies and let them kill him. If not, you can either do 4 or 5. If he uses DFAA to discourage scouting, retreat, wait then attack with TBs. 4. Leave him be. If he's in the middle of nowhere and not a threat to anyone you can just ignore him for the time being. 5. Attack with TBs. Since he has hopefully blown his DCP he'll either be an easier target even under DFAA or will die to flooding if just a single torp hits. If you want to ensure a kill, attack one by one so he can only kill one squad with DFAA. It's obviously best if you spot one when near friendlies since this will either trigger panic DFAA or smoke. If he uses DFAA, just retreat. If he decides to smoke up anytime, use your TBs to either straight up kill him or force him out of it. DFAA is not a free card for DDs to roam the map alone in a CV game. It's a safety net that only works if allies are nearby. Without that it fails very quickly if the enemy CV knows what he's doing.

Funny, when in your wall of text you have done literally nothing to disprove hard facts while once again failing to understand basic game mechanics such as overmatch. You're also not penetrating the bulkheads, you're utilizing a small gap in the armor scheme. You can doubt all you want, shell penetration capabilities are still modeled after real life values. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any less true. And no, I did not concede anything. That's still not plunging fire. You aren't anywhere near penetrating the deck using this incredibly dodgy method. Oh, and Woah, one less citadel in the same number of hits, with a difference of 37 in shells fired. Dayum, KM BBs sure are unplayable with their inaccuracy. I can punish broadsiding cruisers and BBs just fine in my KM BBs. Inaccuracy actually helps you if the target tries to dodge which is why taking random citadels is more common from KM BBs. Not to mention the secondary guns will chew through them without needing any real input. Woah, no, seriously? You die when you go out of position in your big bad BB? Who would've thought? KM BBs will still survive far longer than contemporaries even in such a hopeless situation. It's also far easier to disengage, go back and heal up than any other nation if you're not fully committed yet since you don't need to fear taking citadels. They've been made to be idiot proof. Yes, we will. Because it's clear from what you've written that you lack skill. And a lot of it. KM BBs are more than fine, if you cannot make the second most braindead BB line work then nothing can help you. Their lack of accuracy is literally their currently only tangible weakness, even that is rather dodgy from time to time.

It does however not extend further than the protected area. Which was kinda the point in having an armored citadel when designing such a ship. It's 32mm. You cannot even quote numbers right. Then again the only difference that extra 2mm makes is whether or not a Conqueror using 457mm guns can overmatch or not. Yamato can overmatch regardless, anything else can not. That means any shell that hits the deck will bounce. Anything that hits from the side will either bounce, overpen or bounce off the front bulkhead resulting in penetration damage. Ah, yes, the one little gap between the turtleback that requires one particular angle. Guess what, no BB aside from maybe Yamato (due to overmatch) is capable of making such a shot on a regular basis. Besides, all you need to do is turn a bit further to make yourself once again immune to citadels. If you want to dispute that, I just tested it in the training room with my Missouri, which is among the most accurate BBs at close range since I've taken the accuracy upgrade (tied with Monty). During ~15 minutes I've landed 108 hits and only 5 citadels with this method. Even shooting the same spot from which I previously got a citadel from rarely gave another one. And that was on stationary targets with which I could choose my angles of fire. In any true combat scenario the chance of making such a shot rapidly diminishes further. Screenshots: Since shell penetration characteristics are modeled after real life values, I just referenced this site: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php If you don't believe me, you can also use this to cross reference: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/59528-armor-penetration-curves/ Various Armada videos made by WG also show that shell penetration characteristics are accurate according to real life values. Fact remains KM BBs do not need buffs. They're already too strong, having just recently been dethroned by RN BBs as the most braindead BB line in the game.