El2aZeR

Well, true that as well.

Well, actually that depends. Most popular games with a official matchmaking system don't give out rewards for privately hosted servers either. Just to name a few examples I've played myself: - in CS you can't advance in ranks (though that is a small price to pay imo for all the fun gamemodes there are, even if Valve has been trying to kill off dedicated servers in favor of their matchmaking system) - in CoD you have everything unlocked when playing on dedicated servers, essentially separating it from actual MM (at least it was that way in MW3, which is the last CoD I played) - in BF I believe you actually have to be cleared by DICE to even host a server or something to that effect? At least I heard it is fairly difficult to even set one up - in SC, you don't advance on the ladder if you play a privately hosted game, even if it is a normal 1v1

SShhhhhh comrade. Let balans take its course. Considering that I highly doubt they'll fix that (just like they refuse to fix anything cruiser related) you better go grind a Hindenburg. She's the only CA that I haven't been able to get massive damage totals on in the training room.

Guys... Considering the ridiculousness of some of the things he says, I'm sure he's not serious. Right? RIGHT? You better be.

1. Description Unable to start planes on Saipan after they finished servicing. 2. Reproduction steps Unknown how exactly to reproduce. Unknown if it only affects the Saipan either, but I haven't encountered it on any other CV yet. 1. Enter a match with a Saipan. 2. Play the match as normal. 3. Bug may or may not appear. 3. Result Planes are displayed to be in the launch queue even if no other plane is taking off, therefore will not launch. 4. Expected result Planes should be launching. 5. Technical details Screenshots:

Nikolai. You know, because you actually can't buy her? On a more serious note, Altanta would probably be my pick.

So, get rid of BB overpopulation and all is fine in that regard, no? After all, BB overpopulation = less cruisers. Normal BB population = more cruisers.

So, should I leave Asashio Kai Ni as is or should I remodel her into Asashio Kai Ni D?

I almost cried tears of relief to see that he's on my side and not on the other. T_T Just for the lulz I let him get attacked by a full strike of the enemy GZ (normal one with 2/3/0). He chewed up every single bomber within seconds. Balans comrades. Pure balans. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

NC is the staple of BB play. Which means she gets no gimmicks to keep you alive, is heavily reliant on positioning, gets punished hard if you fail but also showers you in rewards if you play right. You know, unlike newer BB lines which you can play with good results even if you're halfway braindead. So if you don't enjoy BB play, you probably won't enjoy NC. On the other hand if you've mastered the NC, you will know how to play every other BB effectively. Edinburgh is pretty much a Fiji with super heal but worse MM, which means you've got to watch your minimap a lot more as radar ships become a lot more common.

Considering Big E is the only premium ship I play on a regular basis: Because I like to make KM BBabies cry. Also because it has become a small point of pride to be the best Enterprise player EU (at least according to statistics), so I work hard to maintain that. :)

Tried it with Saipan. I guess this operation will be unpleasant for any CV without sufficient skill as anything and everything has DFAA, even some ships that normally cannot use it. Also met two wallet warriors in Scharnhorsts who proceeded to be utterly useless. We lost unsurprisingly.

I see the basics of ballistics are still lost on you. Or you're acting dumb. Either way you've just lost all your credibility. Quite frankly, no I don't. What differentiates the guns on the Monty so much from contemporary T8 weapons that seems to be such a huge deal that the result of my tests are non-conclusive? - Penetration? A quick look at the penetration curves shows that at such distances the difference in penetration capability is negligible. - Shell arcs? Monty has only better shell arcs than NC, any other T8 BB has similar or better shell arcs. And, as we have previously established, worse shell arcs is what you want when hitting submerged targets due to the way both air and underwater ballistics work. - Accuracy? Sure, Monty is the most accurate BB at close distances while similar to IJN BBs at longer ones (because I took the accuracy upgrade). Doesn't that however simply mean it's more difficult to hit Conq's citadel with other BBs? - Volume of fire? That also works against you by making it more difficult for other BBs to hit the citadel of a Conqueror, no? - Autobounce angles? Doesn't matter at flat broadside, doesn't it? Thus, Monty is one of the more easy ships to hit citadels with. And even she struggles to hit the citadel of a Conqueror in a reliable fashion at mid ranges. Using any other BB will simply make the test results more pronounced. Ah yes, by providing the same circumstances in controlled environments, in which the only difference between the two ships was their internal armor arrangement, I have achieved completely non-conclusive results as the parameters and goals of the tests are somehow completely different from your perspective. Interesting. But since you're griping so much about using Monty, how about using something that is tiers lower, has better shell arcs, worse accuracy, worse penetration characteristics and fewer guns? A Bismarck for example? Result: Extremely close - both no citadels Close range - Amagi reliable citadel hits, Conqueror no citadel hits Mid range - Amagi reliable citadel hits, Conqueror single lucky citadel hit Long range - Amagi reliable citadel hits, Conqueror no citadel hits (ran out of time after a couple of salvos, it can be presumed that the citadel can be hit when RNGesus wills it) Amount of citadel hits: Amagi - 10 Conqueror - 1 You still want to say that Amagi and Conqueror are comparable in terms of citadel protection? EDIT: How about using my GK, getting as close as possible to the flat stern of a Conqueror so the guns actually depress, something that is totally, utterly ridiculous and impractical?

Yes, with a Yamato, because with a Yamato you can ignore the entire aft section as armor to attempt a citadel hit. Any other BB must use the flat stern, effective deck penetrations are impossible to achieve at any distances due to autobounce. And if a Yamato cannot hit the citadel of the Conqueror through the entire aft section, any other BB will not be able to do it if they happen to hit the flat stern. Therefore shooting at the flat stern is only a viable option at close ranges and to get penetration damage. Citadel hits are impossible to achieve due to the nature of close range ballistics as outlined above, to even attempt a citadel hit you need steeper shell arcs, which can only be achieved at longer ranges and picking appropriate ships with "bad" shell arcs such as Monty. The whole point of these tests was to find out whether you can hit the citadel through the frontal or aft bulkhead. Results have shown that it isn't possible. Therefore the flat stern is only a weakness to potential penetration damage (can get mitigated by angling and maneuvering), not to citadel hits. A losing argument can only be saved by steering the argument away from the actual topic at hand and adding irrelevant nonsense, eh? You were the one who made the comparison between Amagi and Conqueror. Now you're saying that this comparison is idiotic. By all means you have just called yourself an imbecile. As the test shows the citadel of Amagi can actually be reliably hit at any but extremely close ranges. Against a Conqueror you either need ridiculously ineffective distances or a whole lot of luck. Therein lies the difference. Do you really want to continue to deny that in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence?

If you perhaps remember, there was a third line split teased for RU DDs quite some time ago. I believe those were cold war era ships which carried missile armament. Obviously with missiles scrapped they never made it into the game.

They did test that actually. They found that it was too easy to hit "larger targets", so they were not implemented. Because anything that hurts BBabies is simply not allowed.

Within approx. 20 minutes, which is the longest match duration an immediate test will allow. Coincidence? I have done plenty of other tests which I haven't documented with screenshots, but I have simply repeated them to specifically make such screenshots to have scientific proof against your mere "feelings". Please quote the specific passage in which I said shooting HE is superior. Shooting AP is not a strength against any angled BB, but in particular not against the Conqueror because she heals more penetration damage than any other BB. Shooting AP is more effective than shooting HE, but it is not some kind of magical counter. Conqueror deals with AP just a tad worse than with HE in any combat scenario in which she is angled. Sure, if the ship was floating in the air, which it is not. Underwater ballistics are well documented, but I guess it is a bit too complicated to grasp for your level of physics. To put it simply, worse shell arcs mean a deeper dive, which translate into a higher chance of reaching something submerged. As for your seemingly low understanding of the relation between overmatch, shell arcs and range. On the other hand if you think you can reach it with better shell arcs via penetration above the waterline, please tell me Which of these two is more likely to reach the citadel? Oh, and these pictures do not account for normalization (and are in general just rough approximations), which means you require even steeper angles to have any kind of chance of hitting your target. Not to mention fuse time may simply let your shell explode beforehand even if you were on the right trajectory. Regardless, test results are test results. All potential causes are well out of our reach of manipulation and cannot be compensated for. Some basic understanding of ballistics is however required to talk about the topic, which you seem to not exhibit. 2nd grade level "mathematics" doesn't get you very far here, making your entire point worthless. Going back on your own words seems to be a thing of yours, no? Perhaps you need a small reminder?

Nope.

Keep telling that to yourself. It'll surely improve your play.

This is fairly easy. The current metagame and basics of play formed when CVs were basically extinct, so it obviously cannot cope with the existence of CVs. This on the other hand is not. If you were to rebalance CVs around the idea that teamwork is not needed, then they will ironically become vastly overpowered because this would go both ways. Why should a CV need his team to soften up heavy AA targets or focus them down? Why can't a CV attack any target and deal damage regardless of class, nation, captain skills or current situation just like any other class? Why should a CV be team dependent when any other class eschews such a principle? For the sake of the game I would choose to let those who refuse to teamplay reap what they sow.

Which is surely the fault of the enemy team and not totally your own.

If you've put yourself in a spot from which you cannot retreat from it's your own fault anyway. Tanking for the team does not mean you have to commit yourself to a do or die situation.

Dude, we already have players complaining about current bots "cheating" and being too good.

And at the same time CVs counter nothing because everyone can stick together in small groups, therefore completely deny the CV any influence outside of spotting. Sometimes not even that. If no one chooses to use the counters against CVs that are not only widely available but also highly effective then that's not the fault of CVs, no?

Bad turret traverse and shell flight characteristics atypical for KM cruisers make her thoroughly uncomfortable to play, though. I honestly felt like she's a downgrade from Nürnberg, regardless of how squishy the latter is.