Isoruku_Yamamoto

Same. I was totally looking forward to throwing my money at asashio- then i found out it was gonna have DW torps. Okay? Well, sure. But DW2? At least give me an option for like regular DW @12km or something, anything beyond is rubbish. On the GZ; im fine with the exclusivity period, but they took far too long reworking it AND that 3 months are over now. Also, i know the price is in line, but the ship was really poorly balanced imo, too much autodrop focus.

Problem IMO with GZ is that 80% of those who currently have it are poor players- let me explain. GZ was announced as awesome, but released as terrible. Hence anyone who planned on buying it based on stats either didnt, or refunded. So the GZ became a good autodrop/ auto-engage CV, which is weird for a tier 8 CV. Makes it capable against sleeping targets & german BBs, but also boring IMO. Is it weak? No, its got devestating anti-surface potential and good air groups. Is it OP? I dont think so, all tier 8 CVs can handle it. Solution? Release it for sale at around 25-30eu or in pack with a good captain, for less than the original 45eu still. Why? Its not worth 45eu to true CV players & the collectors dont want an out-of-line CV either. Again, my opinion, but i wouldve bought it the old style xD

An enemy CV doesnt dare come near my mino anyway, plus at tier 10 you're maybe matched up against carriers 20% of your battles. I've tested both AA mod 2 and ASM on the mino but found AA mod 2 be unnecessary, with ASM providing small but satisfactory accuracy buffs. The practical implementation of accuracy also depends on your shooting modes and i mostly salvo fire, which effectively means that you have a 7% more densely packed cluster of shells if you use ASM than if you use AA mod 2, which is especially nice for ships with a mid-range sigma value(1.7-1.8) If you single fire a lot that effect will be more present for high-dispersion cruisers like, as you said, the GS or Krohnstadt. Its all weighing against eachother, but im satisfied with 7.2km AA range on my mino XD

Fair, BUT: an atlanta shitstorming at a destroyer or battleship top end (just not the hull) will always do damage. With a myoko I'd want to hit the dead center as often as possible, with my minotaur i need to be able to shitstorm on non-saturated sections of a ship. So maybe you'll hit even without ASM, but ASM can improve citadel chance or pen chance or whatever (depends on ship type, but specifically for atlanta it just doesnt matter that much due to combo of shell type/alfa and RoF+ dispersion) Also; i dont neglect atlanta torps, i just do so for upgrades cause heck im not gonna torp spec an atlanta. If it were a flint, okay. I'm gonna give it to you; in many cases that -7% wont make a huge difference, but i still feel for many ships it makes enough difference to be worth it over the added AA range. But again, captains preference :D lets not forget about that.

Im not sure if you guys read my first post well. I do use AA mod 2 on atlanta, since i see no added value in ASM. However, i was reacting to redcap saying "you dont use an uzi to be accurate"; i do use my atlanta to be accurate, despite its shitstorms. I do that without ASM, but i don't use it as an uzi XD back to topic: yes, AA mod 2 is quite valid if you have small dispersion to begin with and no torpedos (lets neglect atlantas torps), but only very few cruisers have that. British maybe? They have torpedos USN? Heavies have long reload, quite some dispersion. It's gonna be a good option on the lights though IJN? Nuh-uh German? Feel like they benefit from the accuracy more Russian? Perhaps

Well i do, cause i like hitting all 14 shells on the broadside of a DD at 6km XD

True, but on several other cruisers im more reluctant. My minotaur for instance benefits a lot too, allowing it again to stealth range, but due to the long firing range i prefer to use ASM there. It's a captains choice though. My main point is: AA build is not necessarily sacrificing that much else. So yes i deem AA builds useless, but i deem AA/ (insert something else) crossover builds to be very useful. I even build my carriers for partial AA.

Hello, I'm dutch and so are most of the other active players in my clan. We are small, but a strong clan and we'll have you any day of the week. We are specialised at the USN DDs, hence DD445 (all three in command have a fletcher). And we all have a tier 8 of the german BBs as well. We offer: - Dutch language (not on forum though) - Clan bonusses, on ships, repairs, experience etc - Training - Advise - Division battle & more Vriendelijke groeten, Isoruku_Yamamoto DD445 Je bent van harte welkom.

But i prefer the way it works right now- I'd rather fly around a DM or a Mino (missouri, iowa, montana etc) than that every ship can whipe out my freaking airfleet each time i drop. The only advantage for carriers is that your planes don't get shot away in flight- which should, if you're a decent CV player, only happen to engaged fighters that are either strafing or locked while a ship sails into range. In both cases you can have your fighters flee. So no, please dont, or the last of our kind (CV players) will stop playing haha. P.S. it's completely fair a CV can sometimes make 0 loss runs at enemy ships, some ships are simply balanced such that they aren't granted any AA.

Heres a thought: Some "AA-build" characteristics are easily taken while not given up much else: - Many battleships and destroyers (and some cruisers) benefit from BFT and AFT skills for the commander. - Using the Defensive AA consumable over Hydroacoustic can prove very useful in cruisers to shoot down spotter planes - Using defensive AA in destroyers over speed boost can save your entire HP pool, while the effect of speed boost is nice but limited. On the other hand, with the limited amount of CVs, there are things that i personally wont give up: - Using the tier 9 upgrade slot for +25% is IMO never quite necessary. USN BBs and USN/ RN cruisers already have a high AA DPS, so although they do benefit, it makes more sense to go for gun reload (or aiming in case of USN BBs). - Using AA mod 2 over aiming systems is generally not sensemaking. However, i did this on my atlanta since it allows for STEALTH ranging your AA (i know you cant stealth fire anymore, but the enemy squad has to fly back 1.6km through defensive AA). It only works well if you dont quite need the aiming systems anyway. - I wont spend 4 points on a commander skill for "manual fire control for AA". Despite the brutal effect of this, i simply like other skills better. All in all, i recommend generalist builds where you implement AA as much as reasonably possible (if it is favourable, on IJN cruisers you shouldnt even try). So take the atlanta: I wanted BFT/ AFT anyway due to light guns with abominal range, so its quite cool that these skills boost your AA a lot. AA builds useless? Perhaps. But do you truly AA build? P.S. Crossover builds are also possible, between generalist/ AA (as described), generalist/ AA/ Camo, AA/ secondary, AA/ main gun, etc etc etc so i really think that a pure AA build, while possible, is in many cases quite unfavourable.

Youre not orange, youre pink. I agree that currently the pink mech is set very sensitive, but as said: best is to accept it. 6 battles is quite a lot though so thats for more than one battle isnt it? PS thats a good thing of pink statis, it disappears much faster than it used to (12+ battles)

To both of you: I started playing IJN CVs and took over playing USN later, so perhaps thats the other way around from what's logical in terms of skill. Im quite comfortable with playing IJN CVs up to the Ryujo, while I just think the Hiryu doesnt cut it. It can be good, but not great (whereas a ranger can). Maybe later IJNs can, seen on paper i expect they will actually. But on the skill thingy; you guys are saying USN is easier to play autodrop and auto engage. But i don't do that: im a strafe specialist & i manual drop even my AP bombs unless i really dont have the time for it. So perhaps that explains part of the deal; I'm just really comfortable playing USN carriers (not saying im amazing with them) while the Hiryu (especially the Hiryu, note that) feels unrewarding. Then again, a win rate of 30% in 37 battles is straight out unfair cause that's just not my fault only, i've had a good number of 12-2 or worse losses there. I'll just make some better practice in IJN CVs i suppose, perhaps i havent given them the love they deserve, but as said i have around 20 lines im playing right now. Bit ironic that Isoruku_Yamamoto needs to be taught the relevance of IJN CVs. Thanks for the motivation, cause it's been gone for a year haha

Allrighty then- I will. Japanese carriers are much less pleasant to play IMO. I can easily outplay them in my US carriers, a skilled Taiho player (in my Essex) being an exception. I have a much lower (at least 10%) WR in japanese carriers, the worst being the Hiryu, with a WR of below 30% whereas the Saipan and Ranger are both at around 60%. I know that japanese have huge potential, but i don't like them anymore. Might be due to a heavy focus on the USN carriers though. But i feel like the Alfa strike of a USN carrier is much better, especially cause the IJN dive bombers are virtually useless (they dont even hit and if they do they don't cause damage or fires in my experience).

For me the problem with CV is simply that i got too many alternatives to play. I got the Essex and i like it, especially now that i can citadel even cruisers with my AP. I got battles in which i round out delete 3 or more ships, which is quite funny. Can the enemy do something against it? Well of course, dont go alone if you're a tirp against AP USN CV. But as said; i got around 20 different tech tree ships that im playing, so i wont be playing CV only. In addition, the japanese just suck IMO, although the recent update of the hakuryu (2-3-3 to 3-3-2) seems quite good. But i'm still stuck at the Hiryu, which is just incompetetive against a skilled kaga, saipan or ranger and thats annoying.

Then give me one proper example of when WG actually round-out nerfed a premium. I know a couple; the GZ in between announce and release, look how they handled that, and the Belfast/ Kutuzov (and perhaps another) due to smoke mechanic alteration. They offered refunds then aswell. Other than that they just don't straight out nerf premiums, they always follow the guidelines i just described. Is it illegal to nerf a premium? Hard to say. Is WG willing to find out? Clearly not.

Nah thats never going to happen, because nerfing premiums is hardly legally allowed (they do actually present monetary value, although WG doesnt say this in their EULA). Wargamings policy on premium balancing has always been a clear and comfortable one: NEVER nerf a premium. You can buff it, you can rework it, but you can't straight out nerf it. What you can do however is simply buff every co-tier ship while not buffing the premiums (what they did in WoT, rendering the old school premium TDs useless). The EU brings great protection in such matters, especially when it comes to actually losing ships or accounts. Shame for our friends in the UK who will soon be completely unprotected, since they probably will get a EULA worse than the NA one haha Under that note; the EU EULA implementation of course varies for EU and non EU- countries. Anyone living in a EU country can feel really safe on this issue

Interesting point of attention: if you'd bring this to any European court, a european judge will crap on the fact that you signed this EULA. As stated: 12.1 This EULA and any dispute, claim or obligation (whether contractual or non-contractual) arising out of or in connection with it or its subject matter or formation shall be governed by the laws of Cyprus, unless otherwise required by the law of the country where the user has his habitual residence. 12.2 We and you submit all the aforementioned disputes to the jurisdiction of the courts of the country whose laws are applicable subject to article 1 of the present section 12 "Governing (Applicable) Law and Jurisdiction". In the EU, a company is always required to follow laws from the customer they are dealing with, not the other way around (i.e. we don't follow cyprus rules because WG sits there, WG follows our rules if necessary). So don't you guys worry about this. Also, as pointed out by someone else, the EU EULA is much better than the NA already.

8800 damage is OK for a poor torpedo hit. Your drop was fine, nothing wrong with that, but such hits (front section of hull, non-perpendicular hit) don't always do that much damage I've once scored three fletcher torp hits on a Gearing and the dude survived with 700HP left, my first torpedo did less than 3k damage while he was full HP. It's not glitched or anything, its just a bit of a broken damage mechanism in some situations.

Stop flaming me maybe, his first post seems to be his "support ticket" doesnt it? Thats just a replay, no situation description, after battle screen shot, no time of said situation etc. The first post is what information i have and based on that i would say he could give a lot more detail. Also, im not lazy, i've just had cases where i shouldve detailed better. You seem to be the lazy dude here, cant even read the topic before you make me look bad.

Im saying that because from what i can see it may not be a full detail report & in my experience support gets really lazy when you're not detailling & really helpfull when you lay the detail out for them.

You will have the benefits then, but you are not allowed to build the buildings. That's what not having access means (unlike what the others told you). All that means is that YOU dont have the choice what building gets built next.

Next time try to pass the support ticket the way it should be done. I can't quite see all of it, but it doesn't look like you've submitted it in full detail- and if you're lazy ive found support gets lazy too haha Nothing of an excuses for the "domination" excuse though

There are two different effects here. The first is whether you benefit from buildings, the second is whether you can build new buildings yourself. In general you will easily be able to benefit (first effect), but only the clan command is able to build buildings (second effect). The message pops up if you try to build buildings i think (select an empty spot for building and you'll get that, you wont get the message when selecting a built building). At least i think it works that way, but i cant tell since ive only been a clan leader haha.

I thought you didnt care about my opinion. Anyway, radar may be easily mitigated by figuring out how long they last, what the ranges are, using last known position indicators, straight out shooting them if youre in a BB, etc. I don't play radar a lot myself, my main radar ships are the atlanta and missouri. I'll downright admit its incredibly OP on the atlanta, but on the missouri you actually have to understand how to use it effectively or you wont even make two shots. Now, as far as the cleveland is concerned: I'll agree with you that it's been assigned a particular role for the battle. And if you don't like that role i can imagine the ship seems bad. But I myself really like the idea of having another specialisation in those US cruisers, rather than having 1 single playstyle for all US cruisers.

Youre an under average player, with below 50% win rate, even after NEARLY 15K BATTLES. You might want to stop hating so hard and learn to play radar cruisers. I didn't quite know how to play the NO for my first 15 battles either, but i love the idea behind it now. Sure, it doesnt work in every battle, but it shouldnt. Btw; there are good Radar players, there are bad radar players. There are good DD players, there are bad DD players. Skill is still 80% of the outcome of confrontations man. Put the salt back into the water please.