Unintentional_submarine

Wow... I'm impressed. I knew some people had it in for some of the top scoring CV players, but this is just mindboggling. Way to go on your d-baggery against a guy who asks for help how to play a class of ships. How about stopping with it? What has he done to you guys? Dared to play a class you don't like? Is that really justification enough to act like this? Please take a second and read what you have written and on what basis you wrote it, because it is honestly quite in the gutter of behaviour.

No you don't. You get free use on every cooldown. Unless you are Yubari after the patch or USN DDs. They have limited charges.

Worse actually. The problem is that the game emphasises train rate much more than real life. For instance, while the slow turning turrets of the Japanese destroyers were an issue, they generally didn't suffer much from it in combat, mostly because the enemy was generally in the same direction most of the time, and the battles tended to be much less decisive, giving the ships more time within a battle. So what might appear as atrocious in the game, might very well just have been less than optimal but still quite acceptable in real life. However, the initial 200mm guns of the Furutaka were pretty bad.

Izumo could certainly do with having that third turret turned around so that it would resemble the Nelson class more. Presently it is derpy. No more, no less. It offers no real advantage, but does offer some downsides. You can't fire backwards, like with the Iowa for instance. In return one would expect to be able to fire forwards better, and yes it is somewhat better at it, but not much. Further, if the turret pointed forwards, you would be able to angle forwards to either side as you saw fit. Target on left side, keep him at near front left. Oh he died, but another target popped up somewhat to the right, just turn the turrets over rather than the entire hull (though moving the hull over a bit would probably still be an advantage). Or if you have a destroyer to the rear, no need to lose firepower while turning to the other side, the turrets just follow over (rather than the rear turret going the long way around). I really do wonder why the picked this specific A/140 hull, there are several versions with the forward turret instead. Would it be OP? Doubt it. Izumo isn't exactly a beacon of power as it is. But if it was, some other things could be changed. I just feel that a forward third turret would offer some different gameplay from the usual way battleship do things.

Indeed. But I have noticed something that might, or might not, be related to this. Sometimes when I track a target moving fast across my screen, I can lose target lock. Not in the sense that I lose the actual crosshairs on his name, but that suddenly my guns don't track any longer. If we were to extrapolate that this loss of lock happens more often than that, under circumstances where it is less obvious, then perhaps it also means it loses the ability track a target behind an obstacle. And thus the guns fire low. This is just a possibility. Watching iChase not using the auto-tracking, and seemingly can always lob over obstacles, I wonder if there is a connection.

Nice 'new' camo. Black turrets and guns.

I don't even play WoT, never have, and I still watch his WoT videos now and then. Simply because it is enormously entertaining. Temporary ships. A 'harsher' deal than so many others. I think I can be more than happy that this happens. I know for certain that before iChase's review I was very uncertain about Tirpitz, knowing basically nothing important about her, but now I feel I have gotten a proper review and I feel I can make a guess as to how I will like it (which is a lot). Yeah, I can't see the downsides.

I remember that one... oh the laughs.

Considering WG's less than stellar translation history, I think it is safe to assume this is a direct translation and means "bad sportsmanship" rather than actual bad playing (which shouldn't be reported obviously).

Heh yeah. I love it. Simply love it. Of course Equal Speed Charlie London will pick first place, I just don't see the big hoot. I have around 250 of those and I can't really use them much because I'm seriously strapped for credits. I do use it to get modules researched faster, but once fully upgraded... meh. The real limiting resource in this game are the credits.

Zulu #1 Simply because I'm always strapped for credits and you get so few of them. India Yankee #2 This one is simply great. It is better than the captain's skill (but only for fires). It is a very excellent signal when you need it (too bad you can't see ahead, but then again, if you don't need it you haven't lost much). It really cuts down on fire annoyance, enough that I sometimes fish for Fireproof in order to get it. Now I don't think fires are too dangerous, but give me something that would affect AP shells similarly and I would take that too, and AP is certainly not OP (but damn powerful when used right).

I generally only report people who do something really stupid, like fly off a handle in chat or absolutely destroy their own team. I never report people for being bad. Even today where I got killed because a teammate essentially tunnelvisioned and rammed me so I couldn't get away from the torps aimed at him, and refused to use his guns on a cruiser, I would never report him. He didn't know any better, and while ignorance isn't a good excuse for crimes, it is ok for games (had he been a douche in chat, I would have reported him in a splitsecond of course). I'm still on the fence regarding people who throw hackusations around like skittles. I really dislike people who talk BS like that and then try to get other to report too. I find it terribly annoying and disruptive, and I feel it ruins positive atmospheres no less than people that use their keyboard to dump fecal matter in chat. The fact of the matter is that these people got sunk, and now want to hurt the sinker back because they can't handle it. I have reported a few, but in other cases haven't. I wish I would compliment people more often. I do use it, but sometimes I just forget it. Most of the time I could have used it, I find myself stuck into a new situation and promptly forget the previous positive action until after the game when it is too late.

I do rather like it. But as soon as you get into it with a Kongo or New York you begin to understand that it isn't for higher tiers. I don't even want to imagine the ships that can be spotted right across, spawn to spawn. They would have such a horrible time playing it. But a high tier variant of it would be nice. Those islands offer excellent tactical options, something I feel lacks on most of the bigger maps. There the islands mostly offer situational benefits (on Islands of Ice you get it a bit again, but that's about it end only in very specific locations). In fact I feel the USN BBs could use a more tactical map, and I'm sure our DD proponents would love such maps.

Think about it this way. Those three torp hits were probably more than than they combined did with their dive bombers. Ok, that might be a stretch, but one guy (you) did about as much as they did (two guys). Provided of course that they actually hovered near your carrier most of the game (and thus didn't provide much meaningful spotting).

One of two... It seems everything collided in that game. Thanks Ishiro, that was very entertaining. Certainly gave me a good laugh.

That's not his point. The point is that firing over landmasses is inconsistent. Sometimes you can shoot at a ship behind an island, and sometimes not, at the very same distances and landmass height. In the latter case the shells travel to the point you aim at with the crosshairs, in the former they travel to the point you would have aimed at if there was no landmass. The former case requires a target lock, but even a target lock isn't always enough to make sure the shells get the proper arc (which doesn't mean they will clear the landmass mind you, just that they travel towards a point beyond, rather than the landmass itself). This issue only shows itself if your crosshairs are aimed at the landmass. If you can use a spotter plane or the built in zoom-elevation to clear the landmass, you will always get the shot at the correct arc (again that doesn't mean the shells will go over). Obviously it has something to do with this 'looking' at the landmass.

Have seen it a few times with carriers getting too close. Also I have noticed a few citadels on cruisers. I think some of the bigger secondaries actually fire AP (the 'first' ammunition in the post battle screen).

Oh that's rich. But I'm sure he has a great K/D ratio...

The Japanese Yamato movie from some years ago is probably the only 'good' battleship movie out there now. Sink the Bismarck! is a distant second. Battleship movies are generally quite uncommon (and Battleship seriously doesn't count). I have for the last 20 years been hoping and waiting for a proper and good movie depicting the Battle of Jutland. But at the same time I'm terrified of the prospects of it, what if it is crap, and tanks at the boxoffice? That would pretty much ensure no more battleship movies until the day I die. Maybe I should hope for a 8 piece TV/Netflix series instead. The last 10ish years series with huge budgets have popped up and gotten a lot of popularity. And it would allow for some proper showcasing of the ships, maneuvers and people involved.

It works, however it works against lightly armoured enemies, which are generally faster and smaller. That means the chances of hitting at max range is pretty paltry. I have done it a few times, but considering the number of shells pushed out, I only really do it when no bigger and slower target is around. But getting four citadels against a Phoenix at 15km with my Cleveland was pretty epic. Was an excellent way to start a battle. I just don't do it as a rule, only when nothing better presents itself.

Or 100k if you play carriers.

Actually it isn't that valuable. Since it is voluntary information gathering, you won't get a good picture. For instance, take the NA K/D ratio, and the first CV is Midway, a hell of a long way down (#26, overtaken by the Erie and Hashidate of all things). Now do you guys believe that it is a realistic picture?

Well, technically speaking it is almost never true even if there wasn't that inherent resistance. Many, if not most people, take that module. Sure it isn't a huge reduction, but it certainly still means that the shown percentage isn't true. In any case, how you would you present it otherwise? Within the very same tier you can have very different resistances. Thus it is arguably the only good way of showing it, by going by a base chance if nothing affects it. My 'problem' lies with the lack of information on these things. I mean I only know how this works because I spend a fair amount of time here. If I was my buddy who just jumps in a plays a few games, I would never know it. These things should be visible ingame. Oh so my Fuso now has a 0.7 modifier to fire chance. Well that certainly paints it's hull upgrade in an even more positive light (it is already one of the most effective hull upgrades in the game as I see it). But I can't see that anywhere. Base torpedo detection is also lacking, which I think is pretty huge. In time I hope these things will become more readily available, ingame.

According to Sharana, fire chance isn't affected by armour. So I might have been terribly wrong there. Personal experience doesn't confirm this, but I have to be honest, sometimes I see thing that I want to see (not really something I'm alone in). So when HE hits the armour and doesn't cause a fire (which is the most common after all), I get confirmed. Meanwhile if a belt hit does cause a fire, it is easier to assume the hit was on the deck or something like that. After all it isn't common that we only hit the belt.

Really? Hm, then I might have said something wrong in another thread. I guess I better clear that up.