Earl_of_Northesk

Play Atago or Chapayev if you want to use a cruiser. Or even a New Orleans. Mogami is just bad for ranked, it adds nothing to your team.

Arrival of the next line. Probably. This is the most succesfull introduction of a new line, ever. At least ever since this game went live.

Please examine why?

Please don't talk reason Aerroon. Clearly they are OP and need to be nerfed into the ground.

Without a replay, we can't help you. Althoug it's pretty obvious there was something way nearer to your planes than you thought. You cna see who shot down your planes in the after game result screen by the way, so you don't have the need to do threads like this one anymore.

Maybe they should have nerfed capslock.

I would like to disagree on american AP. It's probably the best in the game, just he gun ballistics aren't up to par, but that's a different thing.

As Hans already said, the reason you are not getting information is probably comments like this.There is no reason to speculate at this point. You have seen they are still in a balancing process, they shall be competetive of course, but people like you are writing them off already without even having them in port and in full knowledge that they might get changed again, like it happened before.

Yeeeeah they told that. King didn't want them to receive anything. But in reality, they just got supplied by the Americans without Kings knowledge. Taking into account they were also deeply flawed designs, the Dunkerques are still a completely different concept to the Nelsons. Regarding the carriers, Taranto was an offshot and started the rethinking of the RN's carrier doctrine. Up until the late 30's, they were considered a suppot weapon and pretty much neglected. I'm not talking about what happened in the war, because they obviously realised their potential then. The RN later found their carrier design to be inssuficient and overly complex by the way, that is why they adopted the American way of building carriers, or at least planned so with the Malta-Class. Another reason was the fact they realised that their hangar design (which was compromised by the armoured deck) meant the operational capabilities of their carriers were way below contemporaries of other nations, as their flight operations and numbers of starts and landings per minute was way superior. So for their size, they not only operated less aircraft but also had fewer of them in the air over the course of an operation. Yes, Illustrious survived. But with the resources spend on her in comparison to her actual combat efficiency, they could probably have build 3 smaller carriers in the same time, getting more out of them all in all and even being able to afford to lose one while still covering more ground (well, sea).

I don't really think so. Because first of all, I've read a shitton about naval history over the years (although my speciality in regards to the Royal Navy lies within the 1750 to 1850 time frame) in general and, of course, about both treaties. Both treaties don't change anything in regards to what I was saying. Both the US and the Japanese got way more out of the limitations of the treaty both in numbers and in quality of design when it comes to cruisers. I do know the Nelsons were built the way they were because of the limitations imposed, but that doesn't change the fact that (even if it might been due to these) these weren't exactly considered a succesfull design. Hence they never got copied by anyone. I adore the KGV's, but even them were, although very efficient in combat efficiency/weight ratio, highly compromised designs and hardly a milestone in late battleship design.

Take into account that the British Pacific Fleet was roughly the size of an American Task Group at that point. Wihtout American logistics, they couldn't even been there, they served a merely symbolic function really. And while they probably had been more durable, they also carried half the planes an American or Japanese carrier of the same size could muster. Relying on the RAF to support the RN is just another example of a blatantly inadequate doctrine. Saying the RN did rather well in regards to aircraft in WW1 is just another example of how much behind they got afterwards. I admire the RN (alhtough mostly for their sailing stuff), but their influence after WW1 is sometimes greatly overstated here.

Meant WW1, not WW2. So, after WW1, British influence on naval design was very, very limited. Edited original post: That's a bit of rewriting history, isn't it? Because after WW1, as the Navy got more and more underfunded for the tasks at hand, it mainly went down to building cheapstakes like the Nelsons, undergunned heavy cruisers and having a carrier doctrine that was a bit ridicoulus. Especially with carriers, the main innovation post WW1, Britain always lacked behind. I like the RN as well, but lets not get too patriotic here. Their carriers were way too small with way too much emphasize on armour. Also, for all of the 30's, GB considered carriers to be merely a support weapon. The Japanese and the Americans were far ahead there.

That's a bit of rewriting history, isn't it? Because after WW1, as the Navy got more and more underfunded for the tasks at hand, it mainly went down to building cheapstakes like the Nelsons, undergunned heavy cruisers and having a carrier doctrine that was a bit ridicoulus. Especially with carriers, the main innovation post WW1, Britain always lacked behind. I like the RN as well, but lets not get too patriotic here.

You do realise the BB flood is mainly caused by the introduction of one of the most anticipated lines ever?

And immediatly, cruisers would be brutally OP, charging battleshis at will with torpedoes. Baaaaad idea. Let's say 3 citadels is the best an Iowa can get against a halfway angled cruiser at 6km. Imagine that only doing 15k damage, having to reload again. Nope.

Hast du bisher überhaupt mal Daten gesehen? Nö. Die Minekaze verbleibt der japanische T5 Zerstörer, also erst einmal die Hufe still halten ;)

Let's say, the Russian server is less organized

Bot these points were part of the WoWs Alpha as far as I'm aware. The artillery cam was just downright crap(it is in Steel Ocean as well, it only works because all distances are VERY small and all ships use railguns, so, [edited]leading shots) and the damage model annoyed people extremely. Jost google World of Warships Alpha footage and look for yourself. It looks very much like Steel Ocean. And equally shitty.

Damn. We got exposed.

Not up to me. But there is a reason for this rework.

Not what I meant, but nevermind.

The usefullness of the smoke is greatly overestimated here.

quoted post removed So you think stealth firing is a good game mechanic? And you think these CL's should have been released? Sorry guys, this is not about the oh-so-hated BBabies of Mtm78, this would just have resulted in a catastrophe... A whole line of "lel kemp smokey bush"-CL's is NOT what this game needs.

Icey muss nur ein bisschen ragen. Gehört dazu, in zwei Stunden hat der sich wieder abgeregt Was wurde denn da exakt generft, mal abgesehen davon, dass den japanischen DD's die völlig lächerlichen Long-Range Torpedos genommen wurden, die das gesamte Meta zerstörten? Ich weiß, dass viele nicht damit klar kamen plötzlich tatsächlich die eigentlich besseren, aber mit Skill verbundenen Torpedos zu nutzen, aber ein Nerf war das nicht.

Nevermind, been stupid.