Unintentional_submarine

How many of those planes were downed passively? The achievement is only granted for 30 targeted kills. Either with fighters attacking someone (not sure if it counts if your fighters get attacked by enemy fighters and you never click on them yourself) or with AA targeting planes specifically. Planes killed by rear gunners or by AA that hasn't specifically targeted enemies won't count for the badge.

Important stuff here. You want to have a target lock any time you fire. Obviously sometimes it is impossible, but given the option you should do it. Expect in one case, expert border runner. The built in aim assist will pull your shells in directions you don't exactly want at times if the target is on the border at the 'perfect' angle to you. Thankfully this isn't a common problem, but it can still happen. Also, the option in the settings only deselects the automatic tracking of the target locked, it doesn't change the range-'assist'. In fact, unless you don't like the automatic tracking for regular targets, I suggest keeping it on. If you have it off you might not notice if the target lock has switched to another ship, and when you fire chances are your shells will have the wrong range. Better to see that the lock has switched by the new tracking movement.

Failzumo Izucky

Without any skills the Grem can sit at max range and shoot without getting spotted. If you increase that by 20% you can effectively run around and troll enemy ships a whole match. The only ships that can really mess with that are carriers and other destroyers. In the case of carriers, they will mostly not go for you, and in the case of Destroyers you should be able to defeat them in a gun duel. Thus I argue for the gun upgrades, all the way. The torps, while nice, are pretty slow and generally won't be useful in panicked situations. The gun though... Yeah. Citadeling cruisers, ripping destroyers apart and sitting stealthed and burning battleships down. The Grem is a beast with the gun upgrades.

No. Though I would argue that the Myogi isn't that bad, the Kongo is a significant improvement in most areas. Averaging 80k+ damage in it, and hitting citadels is pretty common. Provided you know how to hit the citadel of course.

Actually no, the 'nerf' didn't return the values to pre 0.3.1, it is actually still better than 0.3.0. So the net result is better maneuverability to BBs. In return they lost some acceleration at the top. Fuso and Kongos also lost some AA, but that was further back. Admittedly they were pretty serious AA ships for their tiers at the time. But that nerf might have overdone it. In a CV I haven't really feared the Fuso AA since.

Impressive amount of work. Well worth a +1. Small point though. CV stands for Cruiser Voler, not Carrier Vessel.

I don't know if this specific idea is the best way, but I do support the notion that people should go through a Destroyer.

Well, I support the motion.

Reasonably normal. I mean not every game, but if the battleship player is experienced and waits for the Kuma to turn (like you did) before firing, then it is very much possible. And at 7km even a Wyoming can't help but hit the citadel (if aimed well). Now 95% -> 0% means three or four citadel hits. That's pretty good, and not likely to happen again for some time for either of you. But 60-70% in one salvo is very common... if the battleship player knows what he is doing. Take a look at this video, it explains the citadel hits pretty effectively (but dear Chase doesn't mention that torpedo stores are also risky, as seen on so many IJN cruisers). Take especial note of that very first clip.

Everyone being just the British right? Let's ignore the Germans, the USN and Jane's.

Possible? Yes, if you actually apply yourself to it. I'm serious. Everyone can do it. I wonder why so many can't seem to get it. I go into battles and I only do bad in two situations, where the enemy manages to focus me, or I pick an area of the map where the enemy isn't at. Seriously, I have an average of more than 80k damage in the Kongo. You don't get that by being lucky. Luck has an influence on how much damage the individual salvo will do, you also have to seek out the luck. Put yourself in a position where you can repeatedly hit. Another important skill is to know when to shoot. Just because a target is in sight doesn't mean it is a good idea to shoot at it right away. Knowing when to shoot usually means the difference between citadeling a cruiser and not doing much to it. Yes, I get annoyed by individual salvoes at times, but I also get annoyed at individual torpedo salvoes. Usually when my guns fail, I have failed in one or more ways. If the dispersion means I don't hit, then chances are I have shot at long range, where a hit is a bonus. At short range? Have only really experienced that with the Kawachi and South Carolina. And maybe the stock Myogi. It isn't something I have experienced with the more serious battleships.

No it isn't. It's a battlecruiser since it never got it's main belt upgraded. The IJN changed the designation from battlecruiser to battleship after the first modification, where torpedobulges were added and speed dropped to 25 knots. That was pretty much all that changed in regards to battleship vs battlecruiser characteristics. So the same ship just got slower... and that means she is now a battleship? I don't buy that. Let's look at it like this. HMS Hood is often called a battlecruiser, but it was significantly better armoured than the Kongo class. Admittedly I'm on the 'fast battleship' side of the fence when it comes to Hood, but it just goes to show that these designations don't work very well. They are what the parent navy applied to them. Similarly, the Alaska class which most of us would designate as a battlecruiser, the USN decided to call a 'Large Cruiser'. Why? Because they wanted to, just like the Japanese wanted to call the Kongo class battleships, and the Royal Navy wanted to call Hood a battlecruiser. There wasn't, and still isn't, a specific rule for what was a battlecruiser and what was a battleship. Regarding the Scharnhorst class, the British later recanted on their battlecruiser designation and redesignated them as battleships after the war (and it is from the British we have this silly notion that they were battlecruisers). So both the British and Germans were in agreement that the Scharnhorst class were battleships, as were Jane's from 1940 and the USN. Their armour certainly also indicated it. The reason the British called them battlecruisers in down to them designating any ship of line that was faster than 24 knots as a battlecruiser. Hood and Scharnhorst both fell into that, despite exhibiting more battleship characteristics than battlecruiser characteristics. The reason the Bismarcks were not called battlecruiser is because of the KGV class. It was also faster than the 24 knots of the battlecruiser rule, yet it clearly wasn't a battlecruiser, so the rule became defunct. But this was only rectified after the war in regards to the Scharnhorst class (I'm not aware of any other instance where the RN changed the designation after the war).

Sure sure... I wonder how so many can actually kill stuff?

Keep at it. The USN BBs can most certainly be penetrated by the Kongo. But their citadels are usually smaller and lower in the hull (because they are slower they have smaller boiler rooms), so they are harder to hit. But you certainly can hit the citadels. I do it regularly. the Wyoming and New York both have rather derpy turret arcs, so most skippers in those ships tend to turn their ships so they can let off the entire broadside. Just wait for them to show that tasty broadside, and let them have a nice 8-pack of 14 inch shells. You can angle your hull much better than they can (if they insist on using all guns), and should win such an encounter.

'Twas here. http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/17931-ijn-myogi/page__st__20__pid__332572#entry332572 Hidden well on the second page of a thread near the end of the Battleship subforum's second page.

Well it depends, but mostly it is true. If you have just been attacked by planes and the nearest enemy is way out of range of you both, and no more planes are coming, then repairing the fire is ok. But for the most part when you get set on fire you are still in range of more fire causes. Turn an island/cover and repair might be worth it too, but it is risky as an evil DD might hide there (though in that case, chances are you won't live anyway). Letting a single fire run, especially if you have that T1 skill (I love it), means you lose a bit of health, health that almost comes back fully through the heal (light damage gets healed a lot). Suffer his a few times and you get the 'Fireproof' achievement that gives you the awesome 20% fire duration reduction flag. So arguably letting a single non-dangerous fire run it's course can be downright positive.

Izumo and Yamato have 7km base range for their secondaries. That can be increased to nearly 10.6km (skill, mod and flag). That's enormous.

There is that video that was posted here a few days ago where a Sims takes 8 torpedoes to kill I think. Granted they are plane torps, but still, one of them caused a paltry 58 damage. Immortal Sims died in the end though.

You cannot deny the USS Peyton Manning!

I think I get what genai is saying about changes, and if my impression is correct, then I support it. Planes should spend an equal amount of time changing directions. Presently as planes get faster they finish their turns faster. In real life terms this means that as the fly the same path, just faster. Now some planes were famously maneuverable, but such a capability was not true for the general population of planes. So for both gameplay and historical reasons I think it would be fair to implement this. Also, for much the same reasons, high tier TBs approach their targets very fast. This is naturally compounded by their better maneuverability. If we were to use a bit of real life argument, then arguably the crew on the plane needs a bit more time than a couple of seconds to steady the plane, aim and arm the torpedo. At the lowest tiers, the time required in the locked in path is ok. For the higher tiers, it is arguably too fast. We saw the result of a flat a increase to the locked in circle, and that was pretty damn bad as it did exactly the opposite of what it should. It nerfed the carriers that didn't need it, and barely touched the ones that probably needed it more. Neither of those two changes would be enough alone. As shown by the 3x locked in path, which was more than what I propose (a bit more at low tiers, and an equal time at higher tiers). Once that is done, the carriers can be balanced with other means more easily without screwing over some tiers (or overbuffing them for that matter).

If the target is +1 tier then damage, and plane kills, will be worth more to you. If their tier is lower, then the kills will be worth less of course. Not entirely sure by how though, but it isn't massive. You can still do well XP-wise against lower tiers.

You know... I have a nagging feeling that dazzle will not make it. Looking at a dazzle camoed ship could quite possibly cause seizures, or it might actually work (making it harder to determine the target's speed and direction, the range is pretty much given). That second 'issue' would actually be rather humorous. "We can't implement realistic camo pattersn as they might impact gameplay in a negative fashion." I can already see the devpost. Splinter, striped and the various USN patterns shouldn't be a problem though, and I hope for it.

I support that. Reinhard Scheer, recounting the moment when the British crossed his T at Jutland: "The entire arc stretching from north to east was a sea of fire" The British ships themselves were not visible, but their muzzle flashes were.

Tug Life? That's either the most awesome pun, or the greatest accidental mistype.