ColonelPete

She has around 210mm of effective belt armor. Why should that be a brawler? Even many CA threaten your sides. Your job is to lay down accurate firepower where it is needed on the map.

Das ist aber dann Problem des Spielers, wenn er seinen Account teilt. Und wenn der Gegner einen Teil der Karte ignoriert, kann man in der Regel sehr gut von dort flankieren und den Gegner schwächen.

Feel free to read more comments on the forum. I am not the only one thinking that. when you are attacking spaced armor with SAP, you aim higher and SAP suddenly works, that is why the aiming part is important the same works with AP vs angled targets two shell types that work in the same situations are a problem, since neither shell gives an advantage (why bother having both of them?) and when they lose effectivness in the same situation - AP and HE complement each other as they work best in different situations because it makes no difference if I need to hit the belt with AP or the upper structure and superstructure with SAP, that is a similar target area, that is why I often ignore SAP completly superstructure has a smaller HP pool than other parts of the ship and gets more quickly saturated And yes, Shotguns are not the best weapons for mid to long range combat. Take a guess how combat looks like in WoWs. And no, many players do not want Shotguns on their RM BB. Equipping a BB with a Shotgun in this game is a bad idea, unless a ship has A LOT of them. That applies only for the high Tier RM BB and only because WG was unable to develop proper Tier IX and X Tech Tree ships.

Yes, comparing 1 year and 4 year old stats is a good idea and show us how the ships perform in the current meta Why do some people not understand that?

BB life did not really change. When you have trouble with DD, you had the trouble before. Check your playstile.

She has an effective belt armor of around 210mm and Colorado guns and shells. She has the tools to perform well, but will not be easy to play.

Ich muss nicht alles lesen. Wenn ich das im ganzen Forum machen würde, hätte ich viel zu tun. Ich beschränke mich schon auf die Themen und Sprachen, die mich interessieren. Und da bevorzuge ich es von post-faktischen Ergüssen verschont zu bleiben.

Es ist nicht meine Aufgabe. Ich weise nur darauf hin. Und ich mach das nicht damit mich Leute mögen. Ich mach das damit Forumnutzer vorher darüber nachdenken was sie schreiben und ich nicht mehr so viel Blödsinn lesen muss.

Edinburgh is the 6th popular Tier VIII tech tree cruiser in the past two months. Fiji is 3rd on her Tier and Leander is also 6th.

Das ist kein Wortspiel, das ist ein komischer Vergleich, wie er ständig hier im Forum vorkommt, weil Leute nicht nachdenken.

Leander and Fiji are performing very strongly. But as I said in my comments to the DevBlog, I am not sure if that is because of the ships or the players. If that performance is caused by the ships, then the change is ok. Edinburgh on the other hand has good, but not strong performance. It would have been better to improve some of the weaker ships on that Tier.

Ich habe Zweifel das die verantwortlichen Schiffsdesigner in der Zeit 10 Karten gemacht hätten. Dafür gibt es ein Karten Design Team.

Yes, we have balanced ships. This about ship balance, not team balance.

Game Balance, maybe you heard of that?

Doubtful. Players love BB anyway, they do not need cream and sprinkles on top of it to get sold.

Because not hitting stuff because of dispersion is frustrating. And this happens a lot with RM BB and limits the enjoyment people have with the ships. As Chaos already said, the SAP shells are a failed concept. SAP works, when AP works SAP does not work, when AP does not work, which is a already a huge weakness RM BB have no realiable weapon vs DD SAP works by tageting weakly armored parts of the target, guess how that works with bad dispersion SAP works best vs broadside un- or slightly damaged targets, as soon as damage saturation kicks in, SAP becomes weak An improvement of the dispersion is aimed at increasing enjoyment of playing the ships, not making them too strong. For all I care, they could decrease the SAP Alpha as compensation for an improved dispersion. And no, that will not make a New Mex or Fuso out of her...

I do not mind the BB, but I do mind the radar. That was just not necessary. Especially for a ship that was planned during WW1 and was to be build in the early 20s.

Schiffe aus WW1 und davor haben Geschosse ohne ballistische Haube und daher einen größeren Luftwiderstand und verlieren daher mehr Geschwindigkeit über die Distanz. Überraschenderweise ist Dresden auf Entfernung etwas besser.

VIII Gustav-Julius Maerker, ok, but too small IX Felix Schultz, ok VII Leberecht Maass, she is not really too strong VIII Fenyang, probably ok VI Queen Elizabeth, good VIII Monarch, good VI Leander, VII Fiji, ok, but I am not sure if the strong performance is not caused by the players, not the ships VIII Edinburgh, she is not that strong VII Jervis, ok VIII Baltimore, she is not too strong VII Shchors, ok, but not the worst Tier VII cruiser VI Andrea Doria, reducing reload or improving Sigma would be better

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Matchmaking Saving a star does not necessarily mean you played well.

check patch notes

Damage Control would a good idea. Otherwise Supercruisers have Repair. Use the Repair Signal.

Make sure that Subs cannot fluctuate around the depths where they can get shot at or it will be extremly hard to hit them.

TAKE the damage. Not take fire prevention...

I think most Supercruisers can take it.