El2aZeR

Huh, I wasn't even aware that this skill isn't working according to it's description. Anyone knows what they mean by that?

Damage saturation. Read about it.

Moar APM! On a more serious note, try trapping a DD in between your first torp spread, then hit him with the second one. It needs some setting up beforehand AND the UI not ruining everything, though.

Sniping also cuts your own income since you will not be able to shoot down anymore planes. This is why I'm always sad when the enemy CV dies prematurely.

A CVs power depends entirely on the average skill level of the enemy team. Considering the average skill level currently is absolutely garbage, yes, CVs have enormous impact on the matches most of the time. However that's imo not an issue with CVs, it's human error and should be treated as such. Ah, yes, I remember the days when Langley fighters would absolutely murder Midway ones. Good times. The thing is we've had asymmetric MM back in CBT. Let's just say there's a reason why it's gone now (although to be fair CVs were a lot more powerful back then).

I don't remember all the technical gibberish behind it but this is actually working as intended according to WG, it just sucks. Don't worry, though, it'll get changed in the next patch I believe.

This bug has been around since forever. First time I encountered it was back in CBT. But at least on Ibuki it makes sense aesthetically. These on the other hand...

In 0.5.9 if I remember correctly. Thinking way further back she wasn't affected by the BB maneuverability nerf either, so I'm pretty sure OP is just imagining things.

That'd still doom the less skilled player because Dogfighting Expert exists. Besides, I don't really see the point. Aside from making CVs easier to play (which WG is supposedly working on) I wouldn't change too much, MAYBE give CVs preferential +/-1 MM so that their potential power doesn't vary from completely useless to hilariously omnipotent, but are always useful yet still possible to counter. Being more skilled than the other CV only locks him out after all, it doesn't remotely doom the enemy team which can still easily pull out a win if they're well coordinated. If they're not and allow you to pick them off one by one they never deserved to win in the first place, skilled CV or not.

But Trump Wagon prints so much money that it doesn't matter how potato you are. @OP: Almost all of your damage was done to BBs. That's not going to give you a lot of income since it's calculated by % HP damage done (which is for example why doing 10k damage to a DD gives you a lot more cash than the same to a BB).

Most T8+ cruisers can bounce Scharnhorst shells when bow on, but in this case it's most likely just RNGesus hating you.

I'd go with US, at least on high tiers. You get the amazing stealth values (tied with or just slightly inferior to IJN) which enable you to close the distance anyway, denying any kind of range advantage your enemy might have.

Not just unicums, WG itself does it. You do not need to hide behind anything. You can still maintain a forward position, have great impact on the battle and retreat in time if planes come gunning for you. It also enables you to actually support pushes with valuable scouting info (unlike when you're off on your own because no one needs that camping BB 20km away spotted) and smokes. And I'm saying this as a DD player, my CV self would be more than happy if you continue to expose yourselves as easy targets. I'm actually not sure what people dislike about this in the first place. Even in a game without CVs do I see DDs breaking off, too often going out on their own and either easily get picked off by opposing DDs or generally being absolutely useless by getting greedy and chasing some camping BB off to the edge of the map. Quite frankly that [edited] me off far more than any CV ever could. Funny, doesn't that happen without any CV presence anyway? It's not something CVs cause or even amplify (since most players tend to completely disregard a CV presence anyway), it's human error and should be treated as such.

Imo she did not need this many consumables. If I had to nerf her I'd put hydro and radar into the same slot, making players choose between them. But that's about it.

I'm well aware of that. Should've probably made it more obvious. My bad. Precisely, tho I'm not sure if you can really strike the turtleback through the belt without your shells auto-bouncing. Afaik there are only 2 ways to "reliably" citadel a KM BB: 1. Shooting at the waterline when the KM BB is turning towards you, enabling your shells to completely bypass the turtleback armor. 2. Striking the barbette.

Am I the only one who frequently uses the box select? I'd be sad to see it gone. Not that I don't understand what your issue is, but I believe that stems from the general (un-)responsiveness of the UI itself. C&C Red Alert 2 has a similar control scheme (left click = command; hold left click + drag = box select) and it's quite comfy to use, imo perfectly demonstrating that this can work. Or just make right click the command input. It's currently used to deselect everything, something that doesn't strike me as particularly useful (I just found out about it yesterday because I've never even used it before). Another thing I'd add: The camera should instantly jump to a squad when I press the corresponding key twice. Having it move over like now serves no purpose whatsoever aside from wasting potentially precious seconds.

Yeah, no. You may have read it but quite frankly you don't understand anything, neither here nor in the other thread. Minotaur has ludicrously powerful AA, yes, but that in itself is not the problem. The problem is that the AA will start downing planes before you can even spot it.

Do you even read, son? Just to put things into perspective, he demands buffs for Fujin/Kamikaze, because those ships aren't powerful enough already.

Is English perhaps not your first language or do you have troubles reading? Because really, no matter how hard your points get refuted or how constructive an argument is, you keep dismissing that and repeating your flawed view of things like some broken record, making it blatantly obvious that you either have no idea about game balance or trolling. At this point I'll just give up. It's like attempting to teach a pigeon chess.

Nononono, you got it wrong. Check the range (for 50°+ you'd need a range of over 25km). WG accurately modeled shell trajectories after real life values, but capped, not compressed them. Visuals are extremely misleading when watching from your own perspective, but are actually accurate. For example, Cleve shells look like a almost 90° fall at max range, right? Well, this is how it looks like from the receiving end: Aotearas, on 02 February 2017 - 01:19 AM, said: Question though: how comes the Indianapolis can't beat more than 51mm deck armour at 16.82km, but 127mm belt armour at 17,83km? Because the angle of fall for the shell would be too shallow, therefore increasing the effective thickness of the deck armor and preventing the shell from properly "biting" into it (if it doesn't just straight up bounce like in the game). Deck armor penetration increases with the distance, as a longer range will make the angle of fall steeper. In general few ships in WoWs are capable of making use of plunging fire because the ranges are capped and auto-bounce exists. And none of them are effective at it as the range it requires to overcome the 30° auto-bounce angle is way too high. For example a NC would require a range of 27,43km to make her shells fall at 34.1°, defeating auto-bounce (not accounting for normalization because again I forgot what the values are). That's achievable with the range upgrade and spotter but utterly impractical.

A myth. Angle of fall for the 8"/55 Mk 15/16 guns (Balti/DM) are as follows according to navweaps.com: I don't remember the normalization for US ships, but even considering that it should be impossible to overcome auto-bounce. That and the shell would only be able to penetrate 51mm of deck armor at 16,82km. That would not be enough to penetrate Myoko's deck and citadel roof (albeit barely). It's more likely that your Indianapolis is just punching straight through Myoko's flimsy belt and/or barbette armor considering it still retains 127mm belt armor penetration at 17,83km. That Myoko has her citadel above the waterline in some parts certainly won't help her either. (To put things into perspective, Balti and DM are technically speaking capable of penetrating Moskva's 155mm belt at slightly below 19km and Myoko's 102mm belt near their maximum rl range of 26,15km, ranges both will never reach ingame)

Unless ofc a hit smashes your FCS, which makes your BB nothing more than a giant punching bag as demonstrated by Bismarck and Scharnhorst. Volume of fire has a accuracy value on it's own and even if you're incapable of dealing fatal damage to a BB you could make her combat ineffective rather easily. I see nothing but a textbook night ambush against ships that didn't even have radar. A bunch of destroyers could've won that. Meanwhile all battles I listed were direct confrontations. Graf Spee enjoyed clear advantages over old BBs of the time which she put to good use. Had she been a BB this engagement would've probably looked vastly different. I believe I stated already that you should watch some of the dev diaries. One of them mentioned that they've already tried a more realistic approach and that it wasn't fun except for a very specific audience. In fact, a lot of "realistic features" were taken out of the game even after the start of the CBT because they were not fun mechanics. So really, your "realism = fun" approach holds no value here.

Or by rewarding objective based and punishing passive play.

To be fair that happens a lot with T5 & 6 ships in general since the MM rework.

It's actually very logical if you think about it. BBs would usually engage targets at long range, with shells spending a minute or so in flight. That's plenty of time to maneuver. This is why having dispersion was deemed acceptable, because it could equally cause hits as it could cause misses. And as you said it yourself, slow rof doesn't really help either. Most BBs fighting in WWII didn't have radar FCS. The results of radar FCS, while very much improving hitrates, would also still be considered atrocious by ingame standards. Washington -> Kirishima (BB) Distance: ~5,3km (basically point blank) Ammunition expended: 117 406mm; 522 127mm Hits: ~9 406mm; ~40 127mm Hitrate: ~7,7% for both Iowa -> Katori (obsolete training cruiser, disabled prior to engagement) Distance: ~13,2km Ammunition expended: 46 406mm; 124 127mm Hits: unknown, ~8 406mm according to Wikipedia (although I've seen figures from 0 all the way up to 16); ~9 127mm Hitrate main battery: ~17,4% (~34% if 16 hits, but either way this seems like an anomaly, it is unknown if Iowa even hit Katori with her main battery) Hitrate secondary battery: ~7,3% (Hits could also be attributed to New Orleans. If someone can supply more accurate data for this it'd be very much appreciated) New Jersey -> Shonan Maru (Submarine chaser, disabled prior by DDs) Range: either ~1,6km or ~731m Hits: ~29 127mm in 30s Ammunition expended: ~90 127mm assuming a rof of 18 rpm with entire broadside firing (can't find figures for this) Hitrate: ~32,2% Iowa, New Jersey -> Nowaki (DD) Distance: 32+km Ammunition expended: 47 406mm Hits: None, apparently Nowaki did take splinter damage from a near miss, though From these you could safely assume that a maneuvering DD would still be a difficult target at medium-close range, while nigh impossible to hit at long range even with radar FCS.