Unintentional_submarine

Easy there... the one area WGEU has kept us in well, is in the ship sales, which has generally been slightly better than NA. Admittedly, not lately, but one can hope they remember how to do this. But then again, I'm not even sure I want more of these sailing around. *He said looking fondly at his own Kamikaze R*

At times NA does feel like that guy at auctions that ups the bid by 1 *something*. Just sneaking it in... setting everyone else off.

That's pretty much how I feel. Though I must admit that over time the first two are also grating, because they are continually favouring one side. But I don't mind very much that NA has had damn nice weekly and monthly missions/challenges ever since that stuff was introduced. It's one of those "they get better food, we get better houses" sort of things. It's minor. Local events... as long as there is some equivalence over time. It doesn't have to match up, but I honestly want stuff that feels like someone has given enough crap to do it for us, on an equal scale. And that latter bit is, along with the utterly horrendous communications, the problem. There just doesn't seem to be diverted much attention to WoWs here. It's like an afterthought unless something big is in the making, or they are actively removing stuff... *ahem* This thread is about something I am not bothered by, looked at isolated, or even over several months (but for all WoWs time, yeah then it begins to irritate). It's a matter of proportions, and the proportion of this is very small.

Everyone but the Japanese appears to have had serious issues with their torps. Which appears related to the Japanese having more rigorous active torpedo training (not that they were necessarily better trained, but that they had run around with considerably better tested weaponry due to this).

Belfast with a catapult fighter... "I'll just go over here and selfspot from my smoke. I don't need you guys."

There are many solutions. There is the 4 sections remain but only 3 fires can rage (this one is pretty damn weak though as 4 fires are rather uncommon, while 3 are not uncommon; I have only had one instance in the last four months of four fires). Then there is the various 'combinations' of sectors, I rather dislike that. Then we have my own solution which is to make the stern or bow (pick one, any one) not burnable. Those sectors, while not as common as the middle ones, would still represent a major strength in the skill. Then there is the radical approach, where I would remove the section thingy, and instead make it something like 15% less damage per tick. It doesn't have to be 15%, but it would need to be more than 7%. That would make it a strong skill combined with fire duration reduction stuff, but it wouldn't make the ship magically half immune. Just more manageable.

Probably not as Bismarck's main gain from the Hydro is torpedo detection. Even regular Hydro is good enough for that. That she can't as effectively push people out of smoke, well that was but one of the more silly things, and while annoying AF when it happens, it isn't the most common application. But she will still be able to do it, it will just be somewhat more risky.

If it was pointing at a target you would absolutely be able to blindfire something like a British cruiser in smoke if not at long distances. But that was just the least of my worries, most of the others remain.

Arguably BFT was a DD nerf (more expensive) and a BB buff (a lot better value due to greater AA). Of course requires the BB to take it, which it might not. DE was a DD nerf and while not very attractive to BBs, it now affects secondaries, meaning take something away from DDs, add something to BBs once more.

I think it might simply be down to his German background, a simple grammar mistake. However, it is absolutely possible it isn't, we won't know unless someone informs us about it. And I agree, if it isn't a mistake, then why on Earth weren't we informed about this. I'm pretty sure 80-90% of the complaints would have gone away, or been reduced to "why do we have to wait", rather than a full blown fecal tornado.

I am glad that parity has been restored. At least as far as could be done at the present time. Good job on this. I'm glad that it appears someone has actually noticed the male bovine manure that has been the EU treatment. Again good. But I'm left wondering... This hole has been patched good and well, older holes appear to have silted up, so they only leak a bit, but has the giant spikegun been taken away from the clumsy fool bumbling around in the hold? If not, then new holes will appear and even if those holes get patched up, over time the ship will take on too much water. Simply speaking, can we finally hope that things have been learned?

That was my concern too. However it has come to light, and I have witnessed this, that the indicator doesn't show the exact direction, rather the indicator points to one of 16 points surrounding your ship. Like the points of the compass (also 16 points, and likely the reason 16 was chosen, it was also a common maneuvering method 'turn three points to starboard'). North is where you are pointed, so if an enemy pops up between N and NNE the indicator will point to N or NNE, not the actual ship. Thus blindfire with the skill shouldn't be possible outside of guestimation. However that doesn't mean it is all ok then. Far form it, as you can still traverse your turrets in advance, take maneuvering action etc. And it will absolutely wreck any attempts at using concealment to break contact and then turn to a side that the enemy won't expect. "Hehehe, he thinks I'm going south, but I'll go north and get onto his flank as he 'pursues' me." Not really possible if he has this skill.

So it is fixed, and not just partially fixed or something like that? It was a reasonably infrequest issue for me, but when it happened it was obviously horrendous... haven't been in such a situation since the patch yet.

By combining the middle and superstructure sections of a ship. Good luck getting two fires with a DD now. By the way OP, that last choice is... not too good. It is an entirely different sort of thing and honestly one I would prefer not to vote on (with this, perfectly fine for another poll). Like BFT, making it into a 1 pointer with the buff to AA would be insane, but obviously I would like it there, so it can't be that, and yet a 2 pointer is sort of a bad compromise. Probably why the results in that part is so evenly spread out.

Yeah about that... They appear to be listening... to the Russians who according to at least some who have better Russian skills than me, are claiming the new skill tree is in fact going to ruin battleships. Now I hope they are wrong, and have mistaken something somewhere, but if true, then I can foresee trouble.

A lot of this new stuff is close to gibberish to many people and likely require some 'translation', but I must say it is interesting to see a renewed effort to make these things a little more transparent.

Well that's the thing right. Can an utter potato make the most of say, CE? No, he can't. He will in fact waste it's value most of the time. So why even bother with it? Drop three of the points into Fire Prevention and have an extra for something else. So while for most of the people frequenting the forums would likely not get a significant amount of value from Fire Prevention (because good DCP discipline isn't that hard, and not putting yourself into a stupid focus fire situation is equally simple, but still too hard for many), it would be like a foolproof benefit to those that can't seem to manage fires and who would at the same time fail at using CE. It is in my mind a literal handholding skill like this. But let's assume a better player, in say a German BB. We know that he will have to push eventually, or at least make his presence felt. So incoming fire is likely going to intensify. In such a situation I can easily see foregoing BFT for this. The 10% RoF for the secondaries are massively outweighed by the fact that only three fires can rage, and they aren't likely to grow to two very fast. The AA... yeah, that's a painful loss, but only if there is a carrier and he actually attacks you. And let's not forget that Fire Prevention helps there too. DBs are probably the most common way to get four fires on a target... well, no more. And likely only one, again due to that big middle section. One fire we can all live with most of the time. I'm not saying it is better than BFT, just that it is worth it to consider it. Naturally it has some costs, and I'm not even entirely sure just how effective it really is. Maybe what I have observed was massively RNGed in favour of the targets? But keep an eye out and test it. I know it might be hard to fully see it's value if you normally don't have problems with fires, but how often don't you end up with two central fires, even after being careful in your DCP use? Rather often I would say. It might save even good players many thousands of HP per game on average. Let's not forget how long it took battleship players to come around to the fact that SA was a good idea to skill into. That took what? half a year before it was common practice among the better players, because 'I just assume I'm spotted anyway'. Yeah I did that too, never even considering that knowing when I could safely turn was a massive benefit, over just assuming I was spotted and taking a gamle on turning. It took even longer with Concealment Expert, but that one was 'troubled' by some more serious competition (and later by Manual Secondaries as well).

I watched Flamu play a bit on his stream in a notorious firestarter... It took him 130 hits with Moskva (a few of htem were AP) before he got a single fire, because the targets he shot at had the skill and already a fire running in the middle. I had no idea about this until I saw that, which really made me

Ehm, I would like to know where you got the idea that the ship was devided into four equally big parts of the entire length? As that would have to have been a change from the Bow (front), Stern (rear), middle and superstructure WG themselves have mentioned multiple times. What appears to have happened now is that the bow and stern are still the usual sizes while the superstructure and middle are now one section with Fire Prevention. Meaning in many cases, that the middle section is about 70% of the ship as the bow and stern sections are in fact quite a bit smaller in most ships. The fire sections correlates with the damage sections you can find in the armour viewer. The bow and stern are the bits you cut off with the first 'remover' and the superstructure is obviously that. The rest is the middle.

[Removed] Off topic stuff for another discussion.

Yamato realistic turning circle: 680 meters Fletcher realistic turning circle: 980 yards And I know that the Fletcher wasn't some especially bad snowflake (Clemson was as much as 1000 yards). Yamato was particularly nimble though, with most battleships having a turning circle around that of the Fletcher's. Vanguard's was 1025 yards and Wisconsin's 814 yards (presumably all the Iowas were similar to this). As far as I know Vanguard was considered sluggish by common standards so it would likely be less than her's in general. Smaller doesn't always equate to tighter.

So much this. By removing one of the central locations it doesn't exactly reduce fire damage by 50%, but it is going to be massive against all the ships that can't pen the bow and stern of battleships with HE. 8 inch gun armed cruisers will naturally suffer less, but since we do in fact aim for the center mass, they are also going to suffer a lot.

LOL Demolition Expert now works for Secondaries. Yeeees, of course. Not that it will be picked much, but really... was it needed to hammer home that battleships are the focus?

Heh... I can see a cruiser getting a rough surprise if he thinks he is chasing down a destroyer. But it isn't hard to see how fast the target is moving (it will take a little getting use to, but in time it won't be a problem), and if he isn't moving into areas DDs generally do, he likely isn't a DD. One has to remember that even a very stealthy BB has to be careful about the range, so that is an indicator too.