El2aZeR

Considering most whine posts made by BBabies actually get removed rather quickly this is a hilarious assumption to make.

Tl;dr: "I don't like fires. I don't know how to deal with them. Please help. Sincerely, a battleship player." - not a BBaby, deserves constructive answers. "OMG FIRES OP NO BB SHOULD DIE TO FIRES IT IS COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC NERF FIRES PLS." - a BBaby, deserves all the insults, name calling and shaming he inevitably receives. The reason why there is no such term for other classes is because BBs are by far the easiest class to play (and have been for quite some time) and in general more popular than the others, inevitably attracting masses of potatoes who do not know how to play BBs correctly. Thus they will start believing that everything else is overpowered and/or BBs are underpowered, which in turn leads to them demanding significant nerfs for the former and buffs for the latter. Ofc, that happens with other classes as well (and, perhaps more importantly, they get the same reactions) but not nearly as much as with BBs. How this thread is still going I don't know. It's not hard to explain what a BBaby is.

You will be able to rent T10 ships. And quite frankly, after they fixed the economy I never had problems with earnings in high tier CVs. In competitive play players already move in groups and support each other because, unlike the majority of players in random, they are not idiots. A CV rarely, if ever, gets a successful strike off in competitive play and is thus a negligible threat. DD selection is limited anyway, CVs have very little influence on that (as viable choices remain viable and terrible choices will still be terrible). In fact, lack of CVs ironically makes DDs more worthless. Smokes still exist and there are cruisers on T10 that have AA close or, in the case of Mino, far exceeding their air spotting range. Yeah, no. In randoms you go strike or you go home. AS is worthless and the easiest setup to outplay, balanced is perhaps ok for Midway. On the other hand in competitive you only go AS. And, ironically, in competitive Midway vs Haku is actually pretty balanced, making it a tactical decision. Literally no reason to do that. Honestly it sounds like you have never seen how the competitive side of WoWs looks like (since, you know, almost everything you've written is straight up wrong). Just watch this followed up by any match played in a recent tournament. It should however be noted that the tournament format is 9vs9. You are right in one aspect, 7vs7 is too small of a number to include CVs, but that has nothing to do with AA coverage and more with availability of tactics and diversity of such. 7vs7 already limits these by virtue of low ship numbers, but having a CV in there would narrow them down even further. This doesn't mean that CVs are bad or overpowered, far from it in fact, but that 7vs7 is simply a horrible setup for competitive play.

Because the guide told me she is the best choice. :P

Oh, nevermind then. Was sure a Q&A actually stated AR does not work with CVs. Wasted? Hm... Bombing yourself at the start of the game to get faster service times would be a funny thing to test imo. :D

I did not even notice he picked ERG xD

Even Fara agrees with me that in a competitive sense Haku or Midway is a tactical decision more than anything else, thus CVs being unbalanced between nations is not a valid argument concerning CB. Also lack of CVs ironically makes torps even more obsolete, but really, that shouldn't have been news. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They actually were well on their way to, since BBs couldn't deal with the multi-threat environment they were facing without aircraft coming into play. Even during their prime people questioned the effectiveness of BBs (with only the stubbornness of higher ups preventing a radical change) and were largely proven right in wartime, where BBs proved to be exceptionally vulnerable to smaller craft, subs and mines with very little success shown for their massive losses.

Well, Iron Duke currently pretty much only spams HE anyway? So it only works against König. :)

So... Is the turtleback actually 24 or 25mm? Because 24mm gets overmatched by 356mm guns, 25mm doesn't. That makes GC's turtleback potentially irrelevant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_battleships Skim through this list. Wrong, the battlecruisers only sunk two cruisers, with the other two being dealt by the cruiser escorts. A 2/2 split is not something you want to see when one side is supposedly superior. To call Graf Spee a heavy cruiser is equally wrong considering her design. Personally I would designate her as a small battlecruiser, as she exhibits all the traits of one but in a smaller package. Exeter was obsolete by the fact that she was part of a budget class, being vastly inferior in almost all combat relevant aspects than the class that preceded them. Such designs go obsolete much faster. I'd call the crippling of the Graf Spee a pretty hefty defeat for the Germans with nothing to show for it. "Naval history buff" I am actually saying this as a DD player. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. As previously established, a lemming train is not required to counter CVs. The very notion is idiotic.

Capital ships enjoyed advantages in straight up battleline action due to their inherent designs. Too bad that battleline action proved to be the exception rather than the rule, which made them exceptionally vulnerable when deployed as the primary surface force in any other fashion. Even when deployed against cruisers, the latter could still severely cripple a BBs combat ability by targeting various exposed equipment all ships have, perhaps best demonstrated by HMS Norfolk, which destroyed the FCS of both Bismarck and Scharnhorst. Thus cruisers and destroyers were not only cheaper, easier to manufacture and more flexible, they were superior surface combatants in what was then considered modern warfare. Battleships followed the design philosophies of an outdated doctrine even in their prime, with more and more far cheaper weapon systems that were capable of taking them out becoming widely available over time.

No, really? Battleships also took damage disproportionate to their cost (or were outright sunk) against ships they were supposedly superior to, limiting their overall effectiveness and cost-efficiency. Regardless, this game is not a simulator, it will never even resemble something close to a simulator. What you wish for is thoroughly unrealistic in terms of both game design and balance. One of the more advanced capital ships of her time gets crippled against an obsolete heavy cruiser and two light cruisers -> The heavier ship is superior? Really? Armored cruisers actually capable of fighting off opposing battlecruisers for several hours -> The heavier ship is superior? Really? "Naval history buff" at his finest. - wants game to be historically accurate - wants historically inaccurate solo play Make up your mind. As said previously, judged by your experience, statements and statistics, your opinion matters very little.

...Oh. That's a good way to think about it actually. Think about it, guys, WG is actually passively buffing CVs! - Too much AA? RN BBs spamming HE destroying AA mounts left and right. - Smoke blocks vision? Smoke firing nerfed to the ground. - and now, with CB coming up, people will drop their full AA builds! 10/10 I now totally support this decision.

Because obviously CVs can roam the map freely and strike every target they want. It's not like AA ships exist or something. You're getting funnier from day to day. :) Ahahahahaha, no. Realizing that cruisers do not counter DDs is a realization I've made way back in CBT. Because most DD players are as bad as you are. A well played DD (playing a relevant DD line, aka not IJN) on the other hand will dominate the battle. Because they would force you to cooperate with your teammates at all times, something you apparently can't stand. A submarine will naturally pick an isolated target, not a group of ships which is potentially guarded by their counters. You know what is not required to counter CVs? Lemming trains. The sole assumption is absolutely idiotic and shows plenty about your understanding of the game. Though if utilized correctly a lemming train is highly effective, even against CVs. But since you automatically assume a lemming train to be bad you'd never see that, but then again no one expects that from you considering your experience, statistics and statements. No, but considering the maximum range difference that was to be expected, and that does not even mention the difference in resource consumption and cost. If a BB does the same as a cruiser at something in which it should hold the advantage, why build a BB? You still want to be called a naval history buff? Really? As a "naval history buff", you should realize that "daytime set piece battles" and "battleships" are mutually exclusive terms. Remember the things you are judged by? You're just proving my points over and over again.

Adrenaline Rush does not work with CVs! (at least last I heard) You're wasting your points if you pick it.

Tell me, how is a cruiser supposed to counter a DD? Can a cruiser scout a DD? Can he take one down by himself? Great understanding of the game right there, only taking in what you see without thinking about it. Does wonders for your credibility, not to mention your level of experience and understanding of the game. Remember the things you are judged by? Another strike to add to those I suppose. Instead letting them roam freely, unable to be denied by anything but themselves? Great suggestion right there. Not. If they did you'd be complaining about those instead. Also historically speaking submarines never took part as a decisive element in combat, as that was both a waste of resources and fundamentally impossible. I thought you want the game to be more historically accurate lol. So you hate teamplay in a team game. Sucks to be you then. If the majority of the enemy team sucks, yeah. So? Should we somehow have sympathy with those that don't want to learn or improve at the game? Oh, yes, I totally ignored that. I didn't say that a bunch of destroyers could've won the night action of the Battle of Cape Matapan, as demonstrated by the fact that the Italians had no radar nor any awareness at all that they were being stalked. In fact, the Italians didn't even have a night battle doctrine. I totally didn't state that BBs did the sinking was completely irrelevant, as any surface group could've done the job. The battle demonstrates the superiority of radar and good intelligence, nothing more, nothing less. Though it should be noted that the Italian fleet included a battleship (the name Vittorio Venetto ring a bell perhaps?), which earlier during daylight engaged some British cruisers. It proceeded to demonstrate its worthlessness by missing horrendously. 10/10 example to show the superiority of BBs in surface combat. And you want to be a naval history buff lol. All I see is a bad joke. In addition to that, YOU seem to be actively ignoring the list of BBs sunk, severly damaged or otherwise made combat ineffective by smaller, far cheaper craft, which is a substantial number considering the list of BBs sunk by other BBs is about the same size, with the vast majority of BBs lost to submarines. Guess what submarines used to do that? Torpedoes. Guess what destroyers and some cruisers also have? ♫♪ Deeper and deeper he digs his hole, whistling incompetence along the way. ♫♪

Well, if you don't wanna take it from me, someone who is not only more experienced and better at the game than your pathetic self, I guess Flamu is also a noob for calling the NC "the way BBs should be", "unforgiving" and "very squishy when not angled" while making KM BBs synonymous with braindead? As for CVs, I guess being the best Enterprise player EU while also in general being one of the best CV players EU means you obviously know more about CV play than me.

- primary counter to DDs (which otherwise would have no direct counter) - primary scouting vessel - increases diversity, adding another layer of gameplay for every class while also trying to pull in a niche audience - primary teamplay enforcer in a team game, discouraging actions of single ships while encouraging playing with teammates - can prevent stalemates in later stages of a match Meanwhile I do not see you griping about other unrealistic things. Like how a single torpedo isn't enough to doom most ships, or how ships can miraculously disappear from view in open water. Or how effective BBs are when they were in fact useless. You're grasping at straws.

You're probably just going to name loads of simulations, in which you would be correct, it is pointless to include both naval aviation and surface assets in a single game because the former is far superior and would crush the latter. Too bad WoWs is not a simulator. Trying to apply completely different design principles on something else tells a lot about your ability to judge game design. You're just digging your hole deeper and deeper.

And as always you're demonstrating your ignorance in game design. I mean really, history also shows that Battleships are useless in actual combat. Why then include them? Why is it possible to make them overpowered in a game such as WoWs? You're a joke.

Then I guess you actually want CVs to be even more powerful than they are now, with everything else playing AA escort? I thought you want CVs removed lol. It's also a [edited] MP game concept for one like WoWs.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps judging your motives, skill level and playing experience? Then extrapolating from that how much your opinion is worth in terms of game design and balance (hint: It's very close to zero).

"Judging others by their experience, statements and statistics is totally not valid guys! I totally know what I am talking about and everyone else who disagrees with me is wrong! This game totally doesn't need to be balanced and WG should always cater to me, the lowest possible denominator!"

If you were capable of reading, you'd be able to see that statistics aren't the only factor in which you are judged by.