Unintentional_submarine

It isn't something that appears in the drop-view. The drop-view says wide spread, the actual torps run in a converging pattern. Sometimes you can also see really strange things like three torps going much like you expect them to, and then the fourth go 60 degrees across the other torps. And yes, it applies very much to IJN CVs.

BB - CV - DD - CA However, I don't really have a class I dislike, so such a listing doesn't really tell my tale at least. I can enjoy myself immensely in all classes, but some are just slightly more fun. Also, one shouldn't discount the value actual ships have on the listing. For instance, if you are at Langley, you will probably not like CVs much, if you are at Bogue you will actively hate it. If you are at Kongo, chances are you will love BBs, but if you are at Colorado you are ready to throw the monitor out the window.

I fear it is. It's fighters are the last with the atrocious 30 DPS. That means they have low DPS, low ammunition and get pasted by fighters tiers below them if the captain has the Dogfighting Expertise skill.

No need. Just go into the Settings and go to the Controls tab and enable the 'Alternative UI' or something like that. I also suggest enabling the team panels.

Yeah, it pretty much underlines the oddity. But there are also minor positives. Like the Minekaze and Mutsuki upgrades. Many have argued that they are not worth it for several reasons, and some of them still apply, but it seems they are not downright worse, but more like a different option for much the same effect. So if you like to do long range, they might very well be better, but if you like to get up close to the detection range or perhaps even further, then the stock torps are better. But it is almost insulting how much better the Gearing torps are compared to the Shimakaze. Better guns and better torps, and even concealment.

Yeah it happens, and can be quite dangerous at times. At other times the torps miss massively, while still having the criss-cross effect. It makes auto attacks very unpredictable. Never disregard an auto attack for this reason. I have once experienced this while going head on into an attack. ALL the torps were converging on my bow. I just barely managed to slow my ship, but still took one on the nose.

Apparently someone datamined the files for the torpedo stats. Considering that it is correct for all the torps I knew already, I'm inclined to believe it for the rest as well. What is interesting is the Minekaze and Mutsuki upgrades having a marginally smaller detection window. And the Grem torps being rather good (but we already knew they were quite good, if a bit slow). And of course the Gearing torps being significantly better than the Shimakaze torps. It also explains why the Mutsuki feels so utterly bad, it has the worst detection window for it's torps. And where the latter ships have other benefits, the Mutsuki is just crap in all regards. https://frm-wows-eu.wgcdn.co/wows_forum_eu/monthly_07_2015/post-500495173-0-96613700-1436218621.png

Wait what? It is unfair to the people that don't pay attention? I think a clarification would be nice here.

It is substantial. It has been proposed that it is as much as 1 DPS per knot difference. Which is a lot. But technically speaking it should be possible to test. Get a Hosho unupgraded vs a Ryujo upgraded but the Hosho with the Dogfighting Expertise. I bet the Hosho fighter will wipe the Ryujo fighters clean and then some. At least that is my experience.

Oh the Kongo... so lovely. The embodiment of the dictation of the fight. Arguably one of the most enjoyable ships. The speed, the guns, the relatively nimbleness, the range and the AA. She has but two flaws, relatively light armour and slow turrets.

Yeah, I have just come from a Ryujo game where I faced an Independence. I steered clear of his fighters naturally, but I caught his TBs once, with his fighter nowhere nearby. Result? I lost one fighter and he lost 0 TBs for about 75% of my ammo (had to break off due to getting into range of enemy ship AA). WTF! I have even added the 10% damage mod. Those fighters are pretty fast, but that's all they have going for them.

Ok, if you want to be pedantic like that, you should at least use the correct terms. You pilot a ship, be it with sails or not. This is the term aircraft pilots have assumed for themselves (both heavier as well as lighter than air aircraft), but at the end of the day you generally pilot a ship. If you are the captain, you can also call it 'to skipper'. And if you are at the actual helm yourself, you 'helm it' or 'steer'. Finally you can also 'navigate' a ship, in fact it is the generic term for controlling a vessel on water, though it is generally not used for tactical situations like ingame (arguably submarines can still navigate tactically). 'Driving' a ship is only used in jest, as a downplay on the act, and as such shouldn't be corrected upon people who at least use a nautical term (sail) rather than a terrestrial term (drive).

Something that has long bothered me is the maneuverability of the planes. It seems inconsistent. At times when you order a squadron around it takes a wide circle, usually when it is 'paused' somewhere, but give it an order while under way and the squadron can seemingly zoom into another direction with ease. This is problem for a number of reasons. A: It makes ambushing enemy fighters a lot harder. This significantly limits the single active skill people can apply to fighters, better planning. B: As many people complains, TB squadrons can simply rush down a flank and turn very tightly. This is amplified the higher we get in tiers as apparently the turning circle is the same across tiers (but the planes get faster and thus finish the turn sooner). As a consequence setting the strike up is perhaps easier than it should be, and as a secondary consequence it might have contributed to the 3 TB max at Hakuryu. C: It devalues AA. AA shouldn't be stronger per se (sure, tweak here and there), but with more time spent inside the AA envelope the AA can be dangerous, even if not that strong. The main point of AA isn't as a deterrent (unless the planes are undertiered), it is there to punish planes that take too long to finish their attack. I don't think it is fair to ask for AA that can kill a lot of planes with the captain does nothing to help it on it's way by forcing the planes to stay for longer inside the envelope (which would be the consequence of a general higher AA). But if the planes HAVE to take a bit longer when the target evades, we indirectly buff evasive skills among captains (and skill is something I think should be rewarded). And this ties well into point A, as a squadron that doesn't notice a ship until it is 'too late' can not get out in a flash. Worse maneuverability would make skill more important. More planning, more foresight and less impulsive kills. I mean, one of my favourite ways to kill early game is to sent my planes across, as if I'm looking for a fat BB. But I make sure my planes pass near where enemy DDs or cruiser will be. When I notice them, I will not divert to them, I will try to look innocent (to them at least). And then when I pass the 'blind' flank I will peel off a TB squadron. It is crazy how often I catch a DD who thought he was safe. Yeah, they should be more attentive to the planes (seriously, ignoring planes that are nearby isn't good enough), but it does feel odd how much of a hipshot it is. A quick manual drop with very little time to target (otherwise the angle will be bad). If the planes were slower to turn, the attack might get noticed in time... or might not. But at least the signs would be there. Now, I don't think my little tactic is dirty, or unfair. Hell no. But it's chances of success relies partly on making it seem like the planes have already passed the intended target. Prior to that I have a strong feeling most of my kills like that have in fact been keeping an eye on them, but there is a short window of overlap between target attentiveness and effective strike angle. I aim for that. With slower turning planes, I'm sure this can still be done (I mean the main 'problem' is the targets not expecting to be hit and taking even slight evasive actions some time ahead), but pulling a hipshot should not be that fast.

I would gladly trade my Arkansas for the Iwaki... But I can't.

It should be noted (and stressed, in case people don't want to go through the google translate option) that the 'oo' isn't the classical English double 'o' like in 'boot', but more like if you put the stress of the 'O' in Obama, rather than on the 'ba'. This is likely the reason for that odd 'ou', since 'oo' would often end up with a pronounced 'u' sound. It's a mess really because English doesn't have a proper letter construct for the sound. But we should be happy they didn't take after French or it would be Kongau or some such.

The main difference I feel from the Myogi is the slower turret traverse and the extra gun. The worse turret arcs is also felt, but it mainly applies to turret 3, so most of the time you don't lose firepower compared to Myogi. But it should be noted that the armour is pretty weak, do not let enemy battleships have a free shot at your belt, they will penetrate. And where they can penetrate, they can citadel. I love the battlecruiser/fast battleship gameplay a lot. I like to be able to dictate when and where to fight, and that is something Kongo does well.

If you engage battleships primarily you aren't using the Myogi to her advantage. She can keep up with cruisers, so they can't just run away, and the fast turrets mean she can quickly turn around and stay on target. She knocks cruisers like no other ship at that level, and when placed in a fight she can't win, she can run away while hitting the enemy quite well. She works very very badly if you let enemy Wyomings stay on target or present your broadside to them. It is simple. Avoid fights with battleships. You are sitting in a battlecruiser of WWI style, the type of ship that fared poorly in exactly that sort of battle. Instead use her like the WWI battlecruisers were supposed to, kill cruisers and dictate the fight.

Yeah, but you only control those two big turrets. The other guns are secondaries. And at that level their will have a range of 3km, maybe... maybe 3.5km. Hardly very flamethrower at all. A St. Louis will burn the Mikasa to the waterline before it get's in range. And as noted it will have horrible dispersion, the very thing people complain about so much. She will have good armour, but that doesn't matter much as there will probably not be that many guns that could even penetrate much less armour in any case. Both Kawachi and South Carolina will knock her about with ease, twice as many big guns that can penetrate at any one time.

Aren't the IJN fighters generally a bit faster than their USN counterparts? So if the USN captains has the skill, it is effectively reversed, as well as having less tough planes and fewer of them. But in any case, that skill is just bad (not ineffective, it is very effective when it applies)

Yeah. Unfortunately it appears that they just made a cursory translation. Probably also why one functional can have more than one word (reload speed vs reload time, same for turrets). A person with a good knowledge of English should simply go over these things so people don't get confused so often. I mean, how many of these threads haven't we seen already? And I don't think we can blame people for the confusion.

Indeed it does. What is interesting though is the amount of suicide torpedoruns the British performed, and got crippled/sunk by secondary fire. Not that I support more accuracy secondaries in any case.

Sounds like it is going to be a painful ship. I mean, it is even worse than the Kawachi and South Carolina, and look at the amount of complaints they manage to generate.

It works if the teams are reasonably even. But in a walkover, the game ends faster. Assuming the other team actually caps something. If they don't there isn't really any change whatsoever. The cases where the game is over faster are rather few and far between, but they do exist. I'm just not convinced that this is a bad thing. A few bad games end faster, so that good games last longer. In my book Good > Bad.

Excuse me? The Langley's torpedo bombers have a significantly tighter spread. As in you can actually get 5-6 hits with it, whereas you can generally not hope for more than 2 of 4 for the Hosho torpedo bombers. Try pressing Alt next time you have the Langley bombers selected.

Only, Jutland had way more light cruisers and destroyers/torpedo boats involved in deadly duels than battleships and battlecruisers. If anything, Jutland is closer to the game as it is normally than any other battle since.