Unintentional_submarine

I have to agree with this. Higher tier cruisers are no doubt more dangerous, but they tend to discard the notion that a lower tier battleship can really mess them up. But where battleships progress in toughness at a rather rapid pace for most tiers, cruisers don't. They get a bit more HP, but they mainly progress in firepower and relative toughness, to other cruisers. A battleship many tiers lower will still penetrate them like a hot knife through butter. OHKs are less likely due to more HP, but let's not forget that their citadels also increase in size.

Have you ever considered that you might put yourself into situations where you have a hard time extracting yourself without getting 'fired up' a lot? Our stats are fairly similar (mild advantage to me), but I don't find myself in situations like that very often. It happens maybe once every 5-6 games in a battleship. And I have absolutely not a fear in life from cruisers trying the fire route. I fear cruisers with torps (if they are within range of course) and I fear a pack of cruiser focusing on me (who wouldn't?), but that's about it. When I do get 'fired up', it is usually one of two things. Either I messed up and put myself into a situation I am having a hard time controlling, or my allies derped out. Neither of those two things warrants a nerf to fire, as they are technically speaking not about fire, but about how people play (badly or rightly in this case). Nerf fire and you end up with gun-cruisers being unable to gang up on battleships in clearly tactically favourable situations. I see from your stats that you like your IJN battleships. Well, so do I. But I have also gone down the USN line, and what it teaches you is to play very very tactically in order to be effective. But the speed means that sometimes you just can't. That sort of adversity tends to hone your skills at avoiding it. I have then taken that to my IJN battleships, and now enjoy my fire less battles (obviously I get set on fire, but it isn't really much damage most of the time, and that one battle now and then, that's perfectly fine by me). The point is, instead of going "this is the game's fault one way or another", look hard at what you can do better. It might not look like a lot, but we can all improve. It might well be that the game is rigged against you (in any place you find an imbalance) but instead of giving up, fight it. If/when it gets fixed, you are far ahead of the game. You are clearly not bad at the game, thus I have to expect you to be able to adapt well. As such I am confident that you can find a way to minimise the fire. If I can, then so can you (given our similarities with battleships).

I am perfectly happy with my BBs' accuracy. Some ships could use a helping hand, but overall I'm very satisfied with my accuracy and the amount of citadels I can roll in. Having watched Jingle's latest video about BB accuracy, I can only conclude that if people do like him, then no wonder they fail. He complains that he doesn't get any citadels, yet he aims for center mass and doesn't use AP against most cruisers. No crap Sherlock... the citadels don't exactly come by themselves. Though I suppose some players (and apparently Jingles is among them) think that RNGesus will provide, as long as they sling enough shells out. But hey, I'm just blessed by RNGesus. Maybe I should type in chat after every kill I make in a BB "Lord RNGesus, I offer up this sacrifice in your name".

That is indeed the thing. New Mexico is great, and North Carolina is awesome. Thus Colorado can be... lived through. It would have been a terror if after Colorado came Izumo and before it came Kawachi.

Yes you do. Aerial torpedoes were weaker than their ground launched counterparts. In speed, in range and in raw striking power (around 40% the size in warhead). Had USS Pennsyvania been struck by a Long Lance instead, she wouldn't have made it home. See, it was the entire point that a single, weaker and smaller torpedo nearly sank, and definitely knocked out, a battleship without hitting a crazy weakpoint (like Prince of Wales) or setting off the magazine. Did you think an aerial torpedo was stronger?

Also it should be noted that fires are at most one minute long. Most people in battleships pick the 15% reduction T1 skill (and if you don't, maybe it is time to revise it if you are so bothered by fires), so that's 51 seconds. Personally I let a single fire burn itself out. Repair Party pretty much repairs everything back again. And before anyone gets uppity and says that I could have saved it fore more serious damage, all damage is equally serious. Torpedoes, bombs, fires, flooding, ramming and gunfire. But fire and flooding are the only ones that are certain to be light damage all the way. Thus using Repair Party for that is a good idea, rather than when facing another battleship causing regular penetrations (or *gasp* citadels). Fires do kill me, but fires seldomly do more than 30% of the total damage taken, and mostly not even 15% (check the damage taken tab next time, fire isn't shown so you have to calculate back from it). But the DoT effect is incredibly annoying as it is so visible and there is nothing you can do about it (provided your Damage Control Party is on cooldown of course). When an enemy shoots at you, you can generally shoot back. Even if you can't, he must hit to cause damage. A DoT is just damage done after the fact and that annoys a lot of people more than anything. Despite the fact that fires generally don't cause that much damage. And as noted, HE doesn't cause damage to the belt or any other heavily armoured portion of the ship. If there aren't any bits and pieces around to damage, the shell will harmlessly explode against the armour. Never wonder why a salvo of 12 shells only cause 700 damage? Most of the shells hit nothing but armour, with one or two hitting something that could be damaged. However, a number of ships have a certain hitbox damage issue. Iowa being the most obvious. They start at 50% damage taken and after a while gets reduced to 0% damage taken in that section. Not sure if the PTR fixed that with the Iowa and others (Bogue's stern appears to have the issue too, but is naturally a much less pressing issue than Iowa). So some ships will cause 0 damage salvoes, even in cases where they shouldn't.

Have noticed them rather often in fact. Just a splitsecond... But it is enough to make one wonder if there might be planes there.

Perhaps not sinking entirely, but certainly a single torpedo could incapacitate a battleship, and that is the same as sunk ingame. One (1) aerial torpedo did this.

I'm afraid that comes across as terribly glib at a very unfortunate skillreduction for another class. Look at my stats, I'm not a CV player (that doesn't mean I'm an idiot with them, played them about 25% in CBT, but no longer), but I seriously don't want to see CVs reduced like that. It is no less stupid than the indirect DD nerf, which I hope we can agree on isn't a move in the right direction. But sure, let's knock DDs about in order to hurt those evil evil CVs. And while there has to be nerfs in order to make this work, don't forget that you will never avoid TBs again past T5. More than ever you will not be able to avoid CVs attacking you, at least now you know that if you avoid well and get hit, the guy doing it has to have planned the thing and executed it well. The difference is that now everyone can do it, from good to bad. And it will never reduce the great CV players. They will do awesome regardless. Give them only DBs, and they will still knock heads. Why? Because they benefit from other aspects, like picking the right targets, better map awareness etc. Their better torpedo accuracy is of limited benefit comparably.

Yeah, the Tachibana isn't the late war 'budget' DE, but the early century torpedo boat of the same name. And indeed it doesn't look great. Then there is the Kamikaze, which so far looks like a Minekaze with very bad camo. However since Kamikaze is also the class name, it isn't entirely certain that it isn't just a template for another T5 IJN DD.

Why should he be happy about the change? He is already good. Whatever your guys think, it actually takes time and skill to properly learn to do proper TB drops right now, but on the PTR it doesn't. That's isn't a good change. Would you be happy with getting something like aim-assist back for guns? I doubt it. While this isn't the same, it is a serious skill reduction move, and can only hurt the class in the long run. If it stays, carriers will be nerfed in other ways, on top of the other changes. Reducing them to pointless endeavours as the top 10% are no better than the middle 10%. Most people that play a game, play to win, but even more they play to differentiate themselves, to see how good they are with their chosen 'weapon'. This naturally tramples all over that.

Akizuki is as far as we know (which might be outdated since it is old) not going to be a Premium, but the TX of a second IJN DD line (emphasis on guns/AA perhaps?). Yudachi or Yukikaze would probably be better premium IJN DDs.

More agile than the Essex and Taiho, both of which sit at more than 1km turning radius (Taiho nearly at 1.2km). Iowa might not be a ballet dancer, but she is more nimble than her CV counterparts. None of them are particularly agile. Even Hosho has a radius of 740 meters. Carriers are many things, but more agile than battleships they are not.

I am surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. Or maybe I shouldn't be, considering so few people testing carriers. Anyway, the drop marker has changed from where the torps drop from TBs, to where they arm. Suddenly the rudder shift buff makes a hell of lot of sense... What the hell are they thinking with this? At least before you needed to have some skill at gauging where the armpoint was and if the target would turn in. This takes that away, and for what reason? If it is because the hordes of crappy low tier players, then I can only say that this is not a good way to do it. It takes away the enjoyment of actually learning to do something (and do it well), and it massively messes with the surface ships. Imagine even 50% of the carrier population doing Papedipupi level TB drops. Well, with this they might very well be able to. If this is the 'repayment' for the USN DD Defensive Fire, then I would say they have overdone it, greatly. I seriously hope this is a real test, so that these things can get reversed again. It is pretty stupid, and I would argue it is at least on the level of the fail skill for carriers at tier 2 (which thankfully got pulled out again). Gearing is back to 20rpm. Well, it never left it, but just had the 12rpm listed (after the patch that nerfed the RoF of many other USN DDs to 12rpm) while still retaining the high rate. Apparently they couldn't decide, and in the end the Gearing got to keep it's rate of fire. Furutaka isn't so terrible any longer. Still not great, but it will probably never be able to be great with the turret layout. But at least she is quite acceptable once out of stock hull and guns.

Ok, so cruiser and battleships have been rudder shift buffed, destroyers couldn't very well be meaningfully buffed in that department anyway (proportionally the same change wouldn't really be much of a buff as many of them shifted rudders fast enough as it was). So what about CV rudder shifts? Not that it really matters that much 1200+m turning circles.

Fawk! Destroyers are in a bad place now... as if they weren't already. This will allow the line-skippers to sail in their lines and still evade torps really well. I'm not sure that will generate positive gameplay.

Yes, that too. If it is every battleship or the higher tiers. However, if so, I think it was done to give those battleships a chance to play evasion against TBs a little more tactically, other than just slam over as soon as planes are observed.

I have played Big Race a lot in my Kongo, and it takes some special planning to not get into sticky situations. But honestly, I don't mind it, in fact I feel Kongo does exceptionally well on Big Race, because people can't full derp and present their broadsides as much as more open maps. Shooting into spawns. Yes, can be done, but it doesn't happen that much. Or at least not against ships that can't manage it. I haven't shot at a carrier in it's spawn yet (even though I really want to naturally). Most 'victims' tend to be ships that can respond back, Myogis and New Yorks. Probably because they can do it, they tend to hang back a little, while the other ships quickly get behind islands etc.

Jesus, look at that rudder shift! 15.6 seconds. That's down to heavy cruiser levels. Is this only for Amagi? Or has other battleships gotten the same rudder shift treatment. That could be a huge unmentioned buff to battleships in general.

Actually no. Just do a simple search and you will find that the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration is not considered terribly great.

And we have told you again and again that you are wrong. You mix up distance for a vessel on water, with range for a gun. Ranges for guns don't change if they go on vessels on water. End of story. So yes, km works as it should.

The Japanese also abandoned the British Imperial measurement. Nagato's guns are 410mm, not 16 inches (which is 406mm). Yamato's guns are 460mm, not 18 inches. Whenever the Japanese built locally, it was in metric sizes. Except if it was a direct copy or licence. Like with the later Kongo guns. Still they called them 36cm/45 rather than 14 inch, which would have been more accurate. Thus they had pretty firmly abandoned the Imperial 'path'.

Sorry about the bad quote, I tried to delete the table, and found that I couldn't really. Anyway, the very tables presented are the same as on the downright pedantic navweaps.com http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm It's a safe bet that it is in fact true. However, that doesn't make the first table correct, and I wonder why navweaps.com keeps using it (my only reason is that the book that has them has values for all the big guns). Firstly it is a calculation based on the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration, which not known for it's pinpoint accuracy. For instance the Italian 381mm/50 on the Littorio class, is estimated to have a whopping 510mm penetration at the same range (which I might point out is about as good as the 460mm guns on Yamato), while the Italians themselves tested it to be 402mm at 20,000 meters (while the Japanese tested 566mm at 20km).

Let's get something straight, which I also tried to add to that other thread. Ranges, for guns, was and is in yards and meters (and the various sub-values of meters, with the Germans having the interesting hectometer = 100 meters). If we were to use nautical ranges, which in itself would be stupid since it was never used like that, we would have to get into idiotic stuff like fathoms and cables. "Ahhh... that Cleveland is 9 miles, 3 fathoms and 4 cables out." WTF? Easy times ahead.

Hence the contact with the RN. But the RN didn't join them. The Paul Allen group or what they should be called, probably just said "you know, someone tried to get the Hood's bell a few years ago, how about we give it a try?" I get the feeling that's about it. Since they have planned to return it 'home' I don't see why the RN would be bothered enough to say 'no'.