invicta2012

Which reminds me. They've not fixed CV/Sub interaction, have they? That auto DCP cancelling sonar pings every 20 seconds.....

The torpedo arming time change is very good and prevents exploits. The rest of it is a few tweaks to what remains very much a Beta testing model which has fundamental flaws. Well, that is quite submarine-ish. Or at least, it's very *torpedo craft* ish.

What the Colonel said, plus: * Some different maps. The low Tier maps are very "ambush-y". I used to love Solomon Islands but I could do with never seeing Big Race again, and that Z shaped one with the channels up the side for the CVs to hide isn't great, either. * Some more content - years ago we discussed making the Dunkirk mission available to ships which participated in it, so you could potentially use a Tier IV DD like Bourrasque or Wakeful. Might make the mode more challenging, and rewards could be increased for anyone bringing / playing in a team with lowbie ships. They'd be viable, for sure, and might encourage people to dust off a few low Tier ships.

It's Vanguard influenced and the firing angles of the rear turrets look poor - if it follows the pattern of other RN BBs it will have a big above water citadel and it will be a heck of a risk to show broadside and get all those guns on target. Cruiser fire chance, too, along with poor sigma. Looks very much like a glass shotgun to me....

Sports camerawork is extremely challenging. What's absolutely key is that there is a director setting and selecting the shots who understands the pacing/mood and shot framing needs. That costs £££ and it's really noticeable when you don't have it.... sounds like WG needs to redistibute some of the vodka budget towards a decent gallery crew!

I agree, I think so many people would like subs but are worried about the implementation. You can only hope that WG have learned from the CV debacle. If they are serious are about improving community relations then they have to understand that their CV development failures fundamentally damaged so many people's attitude to the game. The criticism and feedback they got was dismissed when it should have been acknowledged and understood as evidence of a major failure. They got so fixated on making their new class fun and successful for its players they forgot that CVs made everyone else feel like they'd volunteered to drive the bots in Co-op. If they do the same with Submarines - and those guided torps, and an MM filled with too many subs is a real risk - that will be a real knock for their game. They can't allow new content to damage the old stuff.

Ah, mate. You should have just played CV. That's about 10 games in a Langley. The non-CV route is a lot harder.

Hmm. HMS Marlborough appears to be the love child of Duke of York and Plymouth. Not the only illegitimate child conceived in Plymouth Dockyard, of course, but not a real-world BB design in any way, manner, shape or form. It's not as if there aren't enough designs and documentation for the actual ones, but no, we get fabrications. So... no plans for a 14 inch gun BB after 1938, and the most they ever considered was 3 x 4 14" guns, two more than the KGV. The bow's wrong (the RN had removed the KGV requirement for A Turret to fire dead ahead to allow better seakeeping, take a look at Vanguard and Thunderer....). The secondary armament is wrong - those should be the 4.5 MK VI turrets seen on Daring, Goliath, Neptune..... If you just wanted to go for it, mind you could get really funky and use the 3" AA guns from Minotaur (so no surface secondaries) but chop the main 14" battery reload down to Thunderer levels. That *would* be fun. British super cruiser, anyone?

Nah. That's Big Bobby Roma. It does show that WG has realised that SAP on Italian BBs is a bit of a failure.

It's good to see them acknowledging mistakes, but if a business has a rotten internal culture (and it sounds very much as if WG does at the moment) then it will take a long time to turn that around. They also have to understand the old adage about reputation, in that it takes years to build, and seconds to squander. Having offended *everyone* over the last few months they are going to have to put a *lot* of effort into regaining anyone's trust.

Some ship types don't suit co-op matches. I find CVs aren't much fun either - spawn locations tend to mean facing massed AA, and the class being DOT based means that you can't output as much spike damage as other classes. Am I going to be able to compete with players bringing TRB DDs, 18 inch BB guns which reach across the entire map? Nah. Subs have the same problems - limited reach, limited movement, low damage output. If the spawn RNG decrees that you're behind a faster ship or on a flank with one/two enemies, prepare for a boring game in which you'll be lucky to get more than one or two salvos away. People keep telling me, for example, that the Tier X Balao sub is overpowered. I can't tell, because at Tier X there is so much high-speed one shotting going there are barely enemies to shoot at by the time you've got into range.

It's wholly realistic. The gaps in history have been filled in with good and relevant guesses from countries which had a major influence on the Polish Navy. Burza and Wicher *were* French designs derived from the Bourrasque class. Blyskawica and Grom *were* 100% British designs, built in White's in Cowes on the Isle of Wight. There *were* plans to regun Polish DDs with improved Bofors guns in the late 1930s. The Polish Navy in exile served with great distinction using RN Destroyers like Garland, Piorun and Orkan. The turn to Soviet designs post WW2 is obvious. .. Standardise the armament and gimmicks (I'd follow Orkan's lead - no smoke, but good consumables (hydro / radar), fast Euro torps and a heal.. possibly some ASW focus?) and you've got a decent line. Tier III is a problem but you can fill it with pretty much anything - a German DD ceded as war reparations (the H145 class which went to France would fit the bill) , a British spare of the M or R Class (Medea/Phua Ruang), or something French/developmental.

The thing about submarines is that they expect to take on water and therefore are very good at directing it and pumping it out again. If you take "Das Boot" as an example, there's as much water coming down the open conning tower hatch in a storm than there is from all those pipe leaks when they get depth charged. The sub is only in *real* trouble if they lose power to their pumps and air compressors and can no longer manage the amount of water in the crewed compartments.

Missouri is an Iowa - faster, bigger, different guns - and a more historic ship than Alabama (Missouri is where the Japanese WW2 surrender was signed). So quite different and quite notable. Alabama has been completely overshadowed in game because a) people like North Carolina, and it's free and b) Massachusetts. I hear people who have the ship speak highly of it, but I can't say I'm in a hurry to buy it.

Perhaps they could recruit some prominent players and streamers from the community to advise them on how new game projects will be received? ;)

We can argue about guided torps (I actually think they should stay, tbh, albeit with changes) but I think this is all good stuff. I would add: 1 - Introduce depth settings for torpedoes. 0m - hits everything. 5m - misses destroyers, acts as DWT against Cruisers, Standard torps vs BB. 10m - misses DDs, most cruisers, DWT vs Super Cruisers/BBs. However... the main point of this is to allow sub vs sub underwater combat. At the moment the properties of torpedoes (they rise to the surface over time) make it almost impossible to hit another sub unless you're below it and it's not actively changing depth. Depth settings (5m intervals) would allow a torpedo spread at fixed depths, making sub vs sub combat far more viable. 2 - Improve depth perception in the underwater view. It's weirdly depthless and 2D. 3 - Introduce arming range for torpedoes, currently this is obnoxious for DDs attempting to pursue subs.

Oh *do* come along. Slowing down as a defence against sonar pings? It's no more complicated than staying within a creeping smoke screen, and certainly simpler than juking an HE spamming cruiser against BB fire, or staying undetected in a DD. But sub play needs that contest - those types of interaction is the sort of thing that makes WoWs exciting to play and which rewards knowledge and skill.

Because you'd kick off big time if WG implemented subs in Randoms straight off the batt? IDK why they haven't gone back to separate "random lite" modes for testing subs but this is the next best option. Putting subs in co-op allows people to play/test/learn the basics without stressing anyone out, but you won't learn whether anti-sub warfare works/is satisfying unless you do so in a proper PVP mode. They're quite silly. What they *should* do is to constantly adjust their bearing based on the sonar ping, not this last minute lurch directly towards the target regardless of how it's moving. (Jingles' recent video discussing subs is quite good on this. Sonar is for target tracking. "Guided" torps of the era should be acoustic ones, which are slower than normal sub torps and which could be defended against by reducing speed (this is much better for DDs - it restores their ability to "go dark" in smoke simply by stopping). Torps should also have a depth gauge, too.... )

A great XP/credit grinder in Narai, though. In Randoms... rather like Myoko in that her design characteristics (capable of taking on any 8" gun cruiser in the world) do not suit WoWs mechanics one little bit, and giving a hint of broadside to any BB is a death sentence. Not enough armour to keep the shells out, just enough to arm any passing AP which makes contact. Shame really, as I think she'd make a great premium.

Looks like something resulting from the UI Changes for Subs. It was targeting the Albemarle, btw. I tested it in a training room. Targeting An Emile Bertin with Asashio And then shifting target to Lexington However the "impossible to hit target" notifier does take a while to disappear on re-targeting. This is immediately after switching from the Emmy B to the Lexington (torpedo marker is white, so I can hit the target I'm locked on).

Marco's OK but Z-44 is an over-promoted Gaede/Maass. I wanted it because I was fed up with most Tier IX DDs and their slow torp reload and it covers that base well, but when I've played it competitive games like Grand Battles it lacks influence - you're outspotted, your gun DPM is weak, you have no hydro, so basically you're taking torp potshots at backline enemies rather than fighting for caps and team vision. The silver line seems to have the edge. I haven't been tempted by any of the ships on the OP's list. I love French BBs but do I need Flandre when I have Richelieu or Gascogne? Don''t think so. The only thing I am thinking of doing is dabbling with the hybrids and buying Ise - might be worth doing that before spending resources on Tone.

Pick an option from the dialogue box - "Attack The Enemy" / "Save The Soldiers", and then the ammunition type "With AP Shells and Torpedoes" or "With HE Shells". This defines the mission you have to complete. The mission will then be added to your Combat Mission list.

Fair enough, but the "tap out" idea is good advice for anyone who gambles, regardless of whether they have a problem or not (or whether they recognise it or not). We're surrounded by game media which is constantly urging us to do more, spend more, not to miss out on a chance of a discount or a bargain, and the idea of a self-imposed stop/pause is a very good one to prevent problems developing or deepening. Responsible companies make this available to players - if I log on to the National Lottery in the UK I can set spend limits, time outs, the type of games I can play, and if WG is going to go down the route of gambling lootboxes and random cash bundles for every day items then it should be compelled to provide this level of control and protection for players.

Subs are actually quite difficult. The "underwater game" especially, is really flamin' vague and annoying, which is why you see all those subs at 2km from each other unable to hit anything. They can't release them in this state.

So much online comment is (loudly) emotionally supportive but practically useless. Breaking addictive cycles involves getting the gambler, or the drinker, or whatever it is, to recognise when they're falling into a cycle of consumption and learning to break the habit. In doing so you break the associative buzz which the habit provides. Those of us who've given up heavy smoking are familiar with how this works, and there's often no need for the psychological breaking down and rebuilding of things like 12 step programmes, or medicalisation of a problem - people can often take the initiative for themselves with a few behavioural tweaks. That's why the "tap out" advice is helpful, it's about putting that circuit breaker in your behaviour so you're not spending money at a point of irrationality.