Unintentional_submarine

Went there and couldn't find any such posts in the relevant threads. I only found some of your posts in this regards, but with no more information than here. Apparently I misses some thread, which is hardly a surprise when I don't partake in the daily postings there. So would you kindly link to the post? Because, while I would love to see some form of Panzerschiff in the line, I simply do not believe it without more compelling evidence.

She gets Repair Party? Trololololo

Damn... now we will lose that extra 1 free XP when the game rounds down correctly. Thanks OP!

What? Where did that show up? Not that it would be a bad fit, but I haven't anything beyond speculation in regards to T9 yet.

They do have those flared flash cones. Initially I thought they were only half flash suppressors, you know where they are essentially just lugs sticking out, but upon closer inspection it might come from the little holes in it.

It is a destroyer leader design study, it was eventually never put into the acquisition plans, but the design was there and it was used for the later destroyers, like the Farragut. You can argue a bit like the Phoenix and Omaha.

I find it a little strange that I can't find any sources that specifically mention the 37mm guns being upgraded to FlaK 42M at any point. I can only find them for U-boats and smaller ships like destroyers, which I find a little strange considering it was such a massive upgrade over the old handloaded C30. Logic would dictate that the cruisers would have gotten it too... especially when they were employed as static gun platforms. Did they really 'waste' that potential? Seems so... strange.

Excellent!

Yes they fixed it, and it shows. Now the graph appears more logical considering the overall trend at T10.

Hardly. All of those USN DDs had 70 degree elevation for the DP capabilities.

Well Hipper is smack in the middle of New Orleans and Mogami in terms of HP (assuming she is upgraded of course) while Hindenburg is slightly better than DM and considerably so than Zao. Shell trajectory appears flat and shells fast for Hindenburg, but the range is simply too short for Hipper to determine well... my initial feeling was that of them dropping a fair bit for such a short range, but I wouldn't put much into it.

They posted some patch notes to that effect, changed the ingame tooltips, but never carried it out, and have now changed the tooltips back to the correct values. I think it is a safe bet that they have abandoned the idea of nerfing the guns like that. Also, while Gearing is the most obvious, she isn't the only USN 5 inch DD with more than 12 rpm, in fact they all have more. Nicholas to Mahan: 15rpm. Benson and Fletcher: 13.3rpm. No doubt. More Grem guns in mounts with rather fast train rate... yes please. She will be a real danger in a gunfight. But if her detection range is high and range is low, she might not be able to stealthgun. And as we know, even the same gun can change in range values for no obvious reason.

Don't worry too much. She has what appears to be FlaK 43 mounts on the side of the bridge structure and further down the hull. They are quite distinctive with their over-under setup. However, she isn't likely to have a massive AA umbrella. Watching the bits with Hipper firing, the fourth turret doesn't actually fire until a splitsecond into the sniper view. That allows us to see clearly how fasts she reloads. 12 seconds (the 12 figure is briefly visible before it changes to 11), which is the very upper limit of her RoF (5rpm). That is in line with Tirpitz' slightly superior RoF. Thus it isn't unreasonable to expect her weakness in AA to also carry over. Regarding German designs, I'll defer to an expert's opinion for the time being, and then await whatever WG puts in as flavour text to see if there is any hints as to where they found it/made it up.

The wiki isn't detailed enough. The USN 5''/38 came in such a multitude of marks and different turrets and setups that while the actual gun was the same, the performance was quite different. Among those are the turrets for the Gearing (and A. M. Sumner), which included integral hoists that could push the rate of fire to a staggering 22 rpm.

I'm pretty sure we are more over in the realm of the Zao, Nicholas, Myogi and Izumo. Not exactly planned, but studied and eventually rejected before they could be put into planning. If there was one thing that Germans did 'well', it was coming up with designs for things that would/could never be built.

Well the Hindenburg is not something I have seen anywhere. It looks like it has triple 203mm guns, which I have no knowledge of being even considered. I rather doubt they are 280mm guns (though the reload does appear slightly slow for 203mm). So I can't comment on that. T9 was not showcased, or at least that is my assumption. But it appears that WG has been considering a 'Super Eugen' for that tier. No idea if that is still the case or if it makes any sense at all. Nor do I have any idea what that sort of design would entail, other than it looking like a Hipper but better.

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/30935-german-cruisers-hype-please/page__st__40__pid__557401#entry557401 My post with the only real image I have been able to find of it. Other important similarities. Low bridge behind second turret, slightly lower/smaller second smoke stack. Second mast also appears to be slightly tilted backwards... Torpedo tubes are in the right position, but appear to be triples (though hard to make out, and if triples it is likely for balance reasons) and there is that cut-out which the Entwurf 1/10 doesn't have, but seems to have been a normal thing in actual ships, so not a significant departure. [EDIT] Ninajed with superior images. By the way, thanks for making it so easily accessible.

Because you don't always fire at long range. At shorter ranges you can easily land extremely big salvoes. That doesn't change that at long range it isn't going to hit every other shell. I have about 30% on my Cleveland, and I pretty much fire whenever I can, regardless of range (if in range). I do hit regularly at long range, but it's like 1-2 per salvo when it goes well. Based on that my accuracy should be a lot lower, but the main engagement range is much lower.

Interesting cruiser at 0.17-0:18. Based on the turrets and the bridge structure, it looks like a mix of WWI (the turrets look a lot like the ones SMS Blücher carried) and 1920s. But the rest of the superstructure and the secondaries she appears more late 1930s. So maybe this is the T7, which I posited could be the Entwurf 1/10. This fits reasonably well, and the more modern parts being the upgraded hull. However that design is extremely bare boned, so it doesn't come as a surprise that this cruiser has two funnels, something the Germans abandoned after Emden (marking yet another 1920s design feature). Even also has the stepped hull with cut-outs for the torpedotubes, just like Emden and the K/L/N classes. Later German designs had flushdecks. So I'm confident that it is the T7 rather than the T9. Very interesting and I'm looking forward to see the background for it. Also very interesting Soviet torpedo layout. I presume it is one one of the high tier destroyers, given that it carried 4x3 tubes, with 2x3 stacked on top of each other, on a very big hull (Tashkent? seems like it has 4x2 guns).

Quite. By the same argument the Kongo would be a British ship. Designed by a Brit and first ship built by Wickers. But that's not exactly a great argument.

[EIDT] Just noticed it came out as a bit of a wall 'o text. Added TL : DR at the end. Seriously "But you are not supposed to like playing BBs"? That is twisting words so badly I can barely fathom it. No, that's not it. You make it sound as if the class is supposed to be some masochistic endeavour. Please. Cruiser ingame (as well as in reality) are the backbone, they are ones that can do everything really. That's why battleships are specialised. They are not inherently unfun, they just require people to have patience and be able to plan ahead a lot. There is very little twitch or reaction with them, and it would be wrong to have that. But I can see people thinking they are not fun if they lack those, in my opinion, rather simple qualities. You need patience in getting past the first ships, you need patience in maneuvering, you need patience in watching your planning unfold (for better or worse) and you need patience in dealing with the long reload and the risk of RNG kicking your teeth in. If you can't stand watching shells scatter, then the class is not for you, and not even a massive RNG buff will help with that as it is merely a symptom of impatience in general (relative, naturally). That, I think is the main reason for the first ships being so awful. They are indeed there to weed people out who otherwise by the time they would get to T7 *ahem ahem* will wonder, "is this the class I wanted?" Better that they go for another class and enjoy themselves there, than burn themselves out on a class that will never be what they want (because of it's inherent strengths and weaknesses). Many people might be drawn to battleships, but many don't really consider the price to be paid, they just want those big guns to blow things apart, as can be seen by the rather common threads where people complain that destroyers can take even a single hit (despite the fact that destroyers did take multiple hits and didn't fall apart). Those people's expectations simply can't be met and still have a balanced game... well I suppose you could have World of Battleships, but that would be boring and then some, and it would drive away all the people that like the other classes. RNG is just one of several factors that limit battleships. Lessening it would not make battleships more interesting to many of those that complain. They would just complain that they get sunk from ambushes etc. There are several other things, that can't be changed, that would still make the class unsuitable to them. But on the flipside people who flourish with the present battleships would rip everyone else apart without RNG. They already do in fact, it is just not as noticeable because carriers have so far surpassed them. Make battleships less profitable? That would be a terrible way to balance them. It would not drive away the starry eyed newcomers, but it would drive away those that can function under the present rules. And it would still wreak havoc on balance. The point is to tell the people that won't ever function with battleships that it isn't a class to spend time on. It is harsh, I know. I played them as well. But it isn't that harsh, as it really isn't a lot of battles you have to suffer through to get to good battleships (though I have seen people complain at Kongo and even New Mexico, so I guess some people can't really be helped). Does this mean that you aren't supposed to like battleships? No. Only if it's inherent values aren't suitable for you. Like destroyers aren't for me. And let me tell you, I thought destroyers would be my sort of thing. I saw videos and streams and thought it would be absolutely fun to get into short range knife fights, and kick people's teeth in with torps. I was half right, the knife fights are indeed fun, but as the game progresses the super fast reloads give way (and honestly we can't really have Umikaze/Sampson reload times at higher tiers), and knife fights become more a matter of 'boom or bust', which is not really fun compared to flying fights with multiple launches at short range. I spent most of my early CBT time on destroyers, only to find that it was in fact battleships I did better with, that suited me best. And my stats clearly show as much. For others it might be cruisers. I have seen many mention how they don't really like the slow plodding style of battleships (should that change too, to accommodate the people that are drawn in by battleships?), and prefer to pretty much always have a solution to a problem that pops up (and weapons ready at a moment's notice). Should those people have stuck with battleships? I'm sure many of them might have been drawn to WoWs because of them, because of the mythos around battleships. I don't think so. They wouldn't have been happy regardless of RNG. But the fact is that far too many grind to get battleships, only to discover to their dismay that battleships play by the same rules, that is that they are one ship, just like the others. And isn't supposed to be a stomping force on it's own. Yet they can do well, even at low tiers. Now I don't expect new players to have developed the required skill at that point, however when the same skills are applied to them, as is expected at the higher tiers, they do well (my T3 battleships did better than my T3 cruisers and destroyers, bar St. Louis of course). And yes, I suffered the very same terrible RNG, but aiming, while a critical skill in any class, is not the most critical for battleships. It is just the most obvious. The most critical skill is positioning, by far. Positioning in regards to incoming fire and outgoing fire, and potential fire. Looking at the OP it is clear that it is in this regard that he fails. He has high survivability, barely any cap or cap def, low damage and low accuracy, across all his battleships. That reeks far off of staying at max range and going towards the edges, away from the fight. No amount of RNG reduction will help with that. Arguably it would hurt instead as those who aim better would just delete him that much faster. He simply doesn't play to the class' strengths and doesn't mitigate it's weaknesses. You are allowed to not be super great at something, of course, but to put it down to the class, when others can do well... that's just not good. Add to that not listening to advice from numerous people. No, I can't accept that. It really isn't that hard. TL : DR I disagree with the notion that it is RNG that is the critical point in making people unhappy about battleships. I believe it is actually the inherent battleship mechanics that have to stay in place for them to be battleships, RNG or no RNG.

Considering that battleships are not intended for the general population, that's not an issue. The general population should be in cruisers mostly, battleships being a minority. It is pretty much the reverse at the moment, so don't expect any serious changes to battleships... well maybe some nerfs I suppose, but even that is doubtful. The point is that battleships aren't supposed to be something everyone will like and do well in. It is a specialised class, and from my point of view it seems many don't understand this. I'm not good with destroyers, and understand that, but I'm good with battleships. There is no need for any changes whatsoever to the basic system. There are of course individual ships that could use changes, but the overall system is here to stay, and if you can't stand (or just dislike) the way battleships work, then just accept that it isn't a class for you. Just like I have accepted that I'm not really made for destroyers (I still play them to have some insights into them, but it is at best for the daily win). This was naturally not directed at you specifically ammattimies, as it seems that you like battleships.

That would actually make sense. When Bismarck lost turret Bruno (superfiring forward turret), the backplate was blown off. Other situations saw turrets blow up with what can best be explained with an internal explosion that vented through hatches and weakpoints with jets of flames. Of course other turrets saw near nothing obvious from the outside. Like Seydlitz at Jutland, when her turret Caesar got knocked out and the only indications that something was wrong, was the silence from the turret, and smoke drifting up the voice pipes.

It quite clearly works. That fact that he is not that great a player speaks volumes about the efficiency of it. He hits like a veteran and plays like a... *ahem* less veteran. I can hit at long range with the Cleveland, but it is certainly not as consistent and easy as his video shows it to be. No, this thing is bad. For us, for WG and for the future if something isn't done. I have no interest is hackusations being thrown every game again. I can hit, so I don't need it, but it has taken me some time and effort to learn it, and I don't want that watered down nor do I want people to think it is through cheating. That could easily turn me off from the game if it becomes too common. Thus I hope it won't, and I expect something to be done about it. At the same time, how can this come as a surprise to anyone? In fact I think it doesn't really. It was just a matter of time, but it is exactly this inevitability that something would pop up that should make it that much more expected and something to be prepared for, which I hope it is.

Ahhh the hourly threads, the night club of the forum. Where people sit down and relax with popcorn and bad jokes. Heh... am I the only one that came to this thread and then had a voice in my head go "don't post... don't post... DON'T POST! Argh you posted"?