Mik1984

That is not the question. There is only one setting on the telegraph for astern and that is full astern. The question is whether the optional upgrade module for 1 000 000 credits that upgrades the ship acceleration also upgrades the rate of deceleration once you install the module. Does the upgrade module upgrade your rate of acceleration only, or does it also upgrade your ability to slow down via engines?

Looks like they don't give a damn and they are lying while answering tickets.

The game could make a great use if there was a hotkey for putting your cannons into neutral position. There is an ability to set your cannons on an angle, but it doesn't do the necessary job. If you do not know on which side you will be firing next and you want to remain flexible, the best thing to do is to is to return turrets to neutral position. Tageting an angle is no substitution, as front and aft turrets have different rotation zones and there is simply no angle point you can target to achieve the desirable outcome. Once cannons are in neutral, all cannons will only need to rotate 90 deg to any broadside. While when you pre-set them to target an angle, you will always end up with a lame turret(s) that needs to rotate at least 180 deg. PS that feature would also be an aesthetic improvement.

I wrote a support ticket, they unfortunately rejected it as an unsuitable way to contact them. Still no reaction from the admins. As if they don't care. It would be nice if they at least acknowledged somehow that they received the message.

"Oh and you successfully killed the whole CV class" - I liked the Japanese CV before they nerfed the torps to 35kts. Now you get a lousy spread on top of not being faster than the US torps, previously you had a tradeoff, the extra range in Jap torps is next to useless. I don't think they added anything to the game by changing the spread from a cone to a parallel .

You get extra stars EVERY single time you advance in a rank, even if you re-advance into a rank you held before, therefore an average player, who wins 50% of the battles will with enough time played go through re-advancement enough times to gather enough stars. On top of that, even an average player can put his best foot forward, when playing the games in which he can gain a double star for win, by using the best ship(the ship in which he is the most powerful) and using rare signals, like the +5% speed, and by concentrating better. Therefore only a significantly below average player is going to be unable to advance in the long run.

bump

I believe the German secondary batteries of 150mm caliber should be switched to the AP ammo, just like Nagato 140mm and Amagi 140mm use AP rounds, so should the German 150mm secondaries. It would give them a great buff against cruisers, while somewhat damaging their performance against other BB's and DD's, though not as significantly as the latter, since their base damage is 3900, compared to the 1700 of the HE, so even an overpen makes 390. Who thinks it is a good idea? OR Maybe in future versions you could specify the ammo loadout for the secondaries in port ... AND introduce "common shells" as an option for the secondaries, since historically these cannons were usually loaded up with an intermediate form of a shell that offered a tradeoff between a decent penetrating ability and explosive power.

The only thing I would like to change is secondaries 150mm in Tirpitz and Roon should fire the AP shells, and not the lousy HE shells.

If there ever was a 3rd ammo type, there should be common shells.

bump

bump

I can't log in there, I don't have a North American account.

Torpedoes are unrealistic, because speeds, ranges and ship sizes are unrealistic. Real torpedoes ran max 48kts in real life, and covering one nm of distance at 60kts takes one minute. Which means torps would take 4 minutes to cover a lousy range of 3nm, which is around 6,4km. A torp would take an entire minute to travel 1,35km. Torps in real life were nothing but stop-gap weapons and destroyers were nearly useless in a sea surface combat, they were good as auxiliary ships for for AA support and anti-sub warfare. And the spotting ranges are also imaginary. Destroyers could be spotted at a distance of around 80% of what the BB could be spotted at, and CA at around 90% of that distance. Anybody looking for realism should play a classical 1999 SSI game called "Fighting Steel" - the creators of the original "Silent Hunter" and "Panzer General" series. Too bad that the only quasi-realistic combat simulator for surface combat in World War 2 was made 16 years ago and nobody has ever bothered to make a remake. World of Warships is an action game, not a simulator, it does not aim at realism, that is not the purpose of the game..

Nah, writing in forums is the same thing everywhere, even if there is a small difference. What needs to be done is that the project management needs to get memo with a link to this thread.

OK, It seems that we have a universal consensus regarding the feature of locking cannons into neutral position. The feature is: - non-controversial, has unanimous support - strongly demanded by the players, people do actually strongly care about this feature being added - easy to implement - does not upset the gameplay experience So, now that we have a nice forum thread, how do we escalate the issue, so that it gets the appropriate attention of the developers? What is the next step, should we ping them in a support ticket? Should we PM some of them? I would fathom that the degree of consensus on the issue is sufficient to push it forward, so that this issue becomes part of their working agenda. It is ultimately their game and they will have the final say of what they want to include, but we all know how companies work and only squeaky wheels get the grease and if this does not end up as a memo to the appropriate people, its as good as talking to the wind.

There are ships in the game like in example Mahan, that have a mix of dual broadside and single broadside torpedo launchers. It would be advisable to shift the torpedo launcher numbers in a way that the dual broadside lauchers always have the lowest number. This is useful, because it allows you to fire every single time first the torpedoes that are only available on this broadside and then the torpedoes that can be launched from either broadside, giving you thus more tactical flexibility. This currently isn't always the case, as in some ships the dual-sided launchers get launched before the single side ones are empty.

And I want a kitchen sink and french fries on the side. Given how extremely rarely writing demands on forum actually results in your demands being implemented into the game by the developers, you will have more luck if you stick to changes that are simple, easy to implement, non-controversial, highly popular and ones that do not affect the existing gameplay experience in any significant way, rather removing some small annoying problem in the game.

I think it might be a gameplay improving idea if Hindenburg, fantasy ship as it is, could also have a fantasy optional upgrade of main turrets form 4x3 203mm cannons into 4x2 240mm Theodor Bruno cannons or 4x2 280mm Scharnhorst cannons, of course adjusting the turret rotation and firing rate accordingly. These cannons are not strong enough to penetrate tier X battleships into citadels, but they would deliver a significant differentiation to the battlefield vs other cruisers.

.

What is "apm of 10"? And you have only 2 groups for some ships, many ships have less standard turret configurations, including middle turrets and side turrets. And I would understand why WG does not want individual turret management. You have to take "no" for an answer. Whereas locking turrets on neutral is a very simple and straightforward feature that would greatly improve the game. It might be so gameplay changing that balancing adjustments would have to be made, as it would definitely strengthen some ships more than others. It would definitely strengthen turret guns vs casemated guns and it would strengthen ships with low turret rotating speeds.

I am not surprised they refused to include it(this would make the game too autistic and micromanagement heavy), but they should include the toggle on/off neutral position. I guess that in WoT it was enough to have a feature that sets the turret to an angle, because you simply have one turret, but with ships who have multiple turrets, it just doesn't cut the mustard.

Not really, you need a simple hotkey you can punch in and out, like AA on/off. This feature is not only for BBs but also for CA's and DD's. A dd is constantly maneuvering and rarely using cannons, you could keep DD's cannons in neutral and punch out in the moment you are about to use them in order to limit time you need to target all your turrets.

Starożytna legenda twierdzi, że focusowanie dział P-lot i drugorzędnych baterii poprzez manualne wskazanie celu ctrl-clickiem zwiększa skuteczność ostrzału dając boosta do celności w przypadku dział drugorzędnych i uszkodzeń na sekundę w przypadku dział p-lot. Czy to prawda?

Is it ever good for anything? It doesn't really help a lot for big ships, except at extreme range, but even then the additional buckshot spread might be an advantage for the enemy increasing the chance of hitting with at least one shot, it might be a help for cruisers, but then it is arguable whether the type 1 is not preferable, and it definitely helps dds, but type 1 might be even more crucial for them. US crusiers might be the choice, like pensacola, where you can pretty much screw stealth. And since the ship is small enough, it might actually be of some help against the high spread bb fire at long ranges.