byronicasian

ITS HAPPENINGGGGG.

Just saying, WG probably is not seeing any reason statwise to buff the Fubuki (ergo, they can go "historical"). Its smack dab in between Tashkent and Benson damage wise, and W/R on par with the Benson (approx .5% less). EU stats are similar (albeit the W/R differential is higher). We'll most likely see another balance pass once the USN torp changes stay for a while and when more players populate the Tashkent. I would imagine if she becomes an under-performer in tier, she would get a gun/speed buff (I doubt they would give pre-refit speeds though). WG will probably not make IJN torp changes unless they're willing to rework how IJN torpedoes get spotted in general. TL;DR - Wait for the next balance pass so there are statistiks to back a buff.

Edit: Now that I'm off mobile, gonna clean up the syntax a bit. It would seem that they gave Fubuki her post refit speeds (when the IJN added an extra 250 tons or so to give her better sea-keeping cause of the whole 4th Fleet Incident) and skipped the initial unstable but fast at 38 kts (albeit her design speed was 39 so she missed it by a knot even then). Post refit,most sources say her speeds lay somewhere between 34-35 knots and WG gave her the more optimistic of the post 4th Fleet speeds. And even then, b/c of differing trial/post refit trial displacements poisoning the well,its hard to tell what would be the proper speeds. I bet that's the reason why they gave Fubuki the 35 knot speed over the 34 (since I doubt the vast majority of other ships are given top speed @ full displacement). http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/57697-fubuki-is-slower-than-usual/page__pid__1410249#entry1410249 http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/57697-fubuki-is-slower-than-usual/page__st__20__pid__1412110#entry1412110 Much like how Nagato's stock propulsion upgrade tops out at 25 kts even though in her early configurations she can make 26.5 top. If the hulls were historical, Nagato (A) w. propulsion upgrade would be 26 knots, and then upgrading to Nagato B/C would reduce that to 25. WG just skipped the 26kt stage essentially. Or Kongo starting at 25kts and topping out at 30 (when in her WW1 config, she would make 27-28ish). Or to extrapolate a proper progression to Fubuki's case, a Fubuki A hull being faster but having a larger turning circle to represent the instability of her design and less health due to lower displacement and so on to Fubuki B with 35kts etfc. It would seems as though most ships top out at what their top speed at WW2 config/operations (unless underperforming stats wise, then WG would usually buff to design speed if higher I.e. Iyeslav).. Side note, there will be exceptions of course. Given how "famous" the Fantastique classes were with their 45 KNOTS DURING SPEED TRIALs (speed trials were at Washington displacements, so even lighter than the Tashkent, and about 500 tons lighter than full displacement) . I doubt WG would risk normalizing displacements to what their wartime load would be w/o risking another forum PR disaster. You can check Redbear's sources at the above link, trial speeds/conditions taken from French Destroyers: Torpilleurs d'Escadre & Contre-Torpilleurs 1922-1956 by John Jordan & Jean Moulin. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/31187-kantai-collection-discussion-thread-kai/page__st__10200

I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't disparaging the Mk 7s the KGV mounted. I was trying to assuage people who feel that the KGV might be under-gunned that: 1) The 14incher she carried were not the same ones mounted on the older WW1 era dreads and were better than the ones carried on the NM/Fuso/Kongo 2) They can always tweak soft stats like ROF, traverse, or pen. 3) And as a last resort, allow for the player to switch them out for the planned 15 inch rifles.

They'll probably give any T5-T7 BB/BC with WW1 lineage some fictional refits mirroring what Renown and the QEs got. So as to make the Tiger competitive to a fully upgraded Kongo.

Don't forget Yubari.

Why? I mean, the RN is one of the few nations that can have concurrent BCs/BB lines. The Nelrods were part of the original Big 7, so they would fit nicely in Tier 7 with the other Big 7s. I don't see how there being only two of them makes them eligible as a premium, the Nagato class was two ships also.

If the 14 inchers are not sufficient, couldn't WG just give her 15in guns that were originally planned? IIRC, the 14in guns on the KGV were a bit better than the ones on NM. A soft stat tweak could still make it competitive.

Ripped from this post. (http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/59055-united-kingdom-royal-navy-vanilla-tech-tree-ideas/page__st__20__pid__1443823#entry1443823) An amalgamation of NA forums ideas for Brit tree. Heavy DD DD CL CA BB BB (2) BC CV Premium 1 Bay-class frigate 2 Admiralty M Arethusa 3 Admiralty V Challenger Dreadnaught Indefatigable 4 V&W Danae King George V (the WW1 one) Lion Argus Emerald 5 E class Leander Hawkins Iron Duke Courageous or Tiger Eagle Attacker Hermes 6 E Leader I class Minotaur York Revenge Queen Elizabeth Renown Furious Colossus Dido 7 Tribal J,K,N Town County Nelson ? Admiral Illustrious Crown Colony L&M 8 Weapon 9x8in Vanguard King George V J3 Ark Royal 9 Battle 12x8in N3 Lion G3 Implacable 10 Daring 12x9.2in L3 K3 Malta

To be fair, I can make the simplest of ornaments (a cardboard backed range-clock, or airplane) and mail it for 49 cents since its under 13 oz. So...yea..won't win a Tirpitz (which I won off a stream) but it means I got a Mikasa for 49 cents and about 30 minutes of my free time.

The only conceivable Atlanta nerf I can think of is the general ballistics change to all USN 5"/38 guns to use historical shell arcs (vs the flatter arcs they had in CBT). This shell change came during OBT so from 4.X to 5.X, nothing really happened except for the turret durability buff and people finding out how floaty the 5 inchers are and become much more proficient at not going into range where you can hit reliably.

Wait wut? Did the USN torpedo range change also change their detection range? http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/55238-updated-list-of-torpedo-detection-ranges-shell-krupp-values/page__pid__1354545#entry1354545 The only IJN DD that has a lower Torpedo detection range is the Umikaze when she's using "450 mm Type44 mod. 2". USN and IJN DD have torp detection parity at tiers 3-4. Starting with the Minekaze Torps, IJN DDs will now have torps that will be detected further out. Minekaze's Type 92s detected at 1.6km vs the Nicholas' 1.3km Mutsuki's Type 8s being detected at 1.8-2km vs Farrugut's access to Mahan's Mk 12s gives it the same 1.5km torp detection Hatsuharu's Type 90s detected at 1.9km vs Mahan's Mk.12s being detected at 1.5km Fubuki's Type 90s 1.8-1.9km vs Bensons' 1.2-1.5km Kagerou's Type 93s getting detected at 2.1km vs Fletcher's Mk. 14s & 16s 1.2-1.6km Shimakaze's Type 93s are also detected further than Gearings Mk. 16s (2.1km vs 1.6km)

Protip, T7 Yorck is not the WW1 Battlecruiser Erstaz Yorck.... The ingame specs of 8 x 21cm guns match the ones listed for the Entwurf I/10. In game screen shots of the T7 Yorck matches closely to the Entwurf I/10 schematics. RU dev confirming the design as our T7 Yorck. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/50785-have-we-identified-which-designs-go-with-which-paper-ship-in-the-german-line-yet/page__st__20__pid__1259167#entry1259167 The Ent I/10 itself is a preliminary design for what eventually became the Deutschland class of ships. Yorck is just the name the devs gave to the design.

Guess I'll have to check when I get home. The only port model discrepancy us NAers found was the lack of rangefinders and turrettop AAA platforms on the No 2 & 3 turrets. I don't have a membership to gamemodels3d so I can't really see what the Nagato's in game armor model is like.

They can't keep themselves angled forever. High AP damage allows you to nuke when the opportunity arises (more often than not, the opposing cruiser gets greedy and wants to fire a full broadside).

Yes to the 1st or 2nd question?

No NA/EU subsidiary employee is going to touch that thread and EVERYone knows that unless they get assurances from RU that something will change. Promising change but then getting stonewalled by RU is one way to ruin what little credibility they have with an already fractious player base.

Are you talking about the armor model? Or how it looks in port?

Don't know what you're expecting with a Big World engine damage model and how thinly armored German CAs were compared to their contemporaries (usually approx. inch less vs their in game tier equivalent). Their AP is killer though. [edited]love the K-berg and from what I've heard about the T8-10s, with AP you can get very very consistent damage on Yamatos even. More than makes up for the HE IMO.

A supertester on the NA forums posted this to explain the changes in the fix. And yes, underwater citadel hits/pens were a thing. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/57854-quick-illustration-to-what-happened-between-503-and-511/page__pid__1414012#entry1414012 The overpens of citadel bounces are still [possibly] happening too often and are still being looked at, this change will hopefully bring BB damage up a bit.

UPDATE: GOOGLE TRANSLATE DOESN'T HANDLE RUSSIAN NEGATIVES WELL. It translated "roll back to damage model of 0.5.0 is not planned" (откат на модель повреждений 0.5.0 не планируется) as "roll back to the model of damages 0.5.0 is planned". TL; DR - NO ROLLBACK, WG will not be waiting for public stats and are running internal/studio tests and hotfixing from there. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/57539-update-on-bbs-ap-from-russia/page__pid__1405499#entry1405499

http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/34999-о-цитаделях-в-051/page__st__700__p__1485543 From Octavian: Dear players, Small update on the situation of the citadel. 1. Roll back to the model of damages 0.5.0 is planned. Today, we have considered this option, however, as I have already explained, the error must be corrected internal rebound anyway. So roll back to the old model, and then the next changes in the new model seems to us not the best solution. We believe that such a "throw" will bring even more negativity. 2. On the other hand, today's studio tests and checks showed that internal bounce may not be the only reason for the fall of the number of penetrations of the citadel. We already have several hypotheses about what other scenario could change after the upgrade.Unfortunately, we hardly have time to finally deal with it today, but will make every effort to solve the problem for the next few days. This is the priority issue 0.5.1 update. 3. Neither of which the collection of statistics for the month of speech is not going. The necessary data we get ourselves, when we finish our review. At the moment, it is not a question of fine-balancing of some individual ships (these things really need to gather statistics for a long time), and the likelihood of possible errors in mechanics, because of the damage to the citadel which includes less. In general, m s check things, prepare an adequate solution and will share with you the details. And, finally, we are able to play safely. On behalf of the entire team, allow to sincerely thank you for having quickly gave us to understand about this problem and its extent Roll back incoming.. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/57515-from-the-ru-forums-on-ap-changes/page__st__160__pid__1405441#entry1405441

From an cursory look via google translate? No, there was a post on 5.1 dispersion though.

AA is a balancing factor now, and for the most part never matches historical loadouts. Considering how well the Imperator is performing, having weaker AA to make it more vulnerable to airstrikes would balance it somewhat.

Did they change the aimpoint also? I noticed that if I aim for the waterline, when RNG used to "straddle", the rounds land short (I notice this on other peoples salvos using my spotter plane, shells were landing all short instead of straddling on straight moving targets). Less citadels, but I got more regular penetrations than usual.