HaachamaShipping

It does. Sadly they used the best canditate for such a ship to create the Asashio, which is one of the major things I hate about the ship. The legacy of the Asashio-class is represented by this derp boat. I guess unless WG just ignores IJN DDs and considers Harekaze as a collab ship and Asashio as a premium sufficient, the next best candidate for T8 premium is Yukikaze? inb4 Yukikaze becomes a PA premium as Tan Yang...

I could have bought a Scharn with my doubloons when it came back to the shop, then I bought an Atlanta instead... which actually might not be a bad ship for the mission...

Likely just going to play some Harekaze for that, if it doesn't get done with Fiji or Leander. Just something that can play around caps and even with epicenter, just reset the enemy capping progress once or twice and cap a circle or two and it is done. I found getting 1.75k base exp the hardest so far, as it was on the weekend and I was busy with work. Got it done eventually, but was prepared to skip that mission. Got all the others done so far, so would be no big deal, but well, at that point I go full completionist. Looking at upcoming missions, Set two fires and get two citadels might need a bit, given how I'd likely have to either play a HE spamming cruiser in close range brawls to get cits or try set fires with a BB. And if rng does not favour me those days... Overall, should be an easy marathon though.

Or maybe I actually know what her main strength is, which is why I get 60.83% WR in her while playing on my own without any division mates, while your AA build gets you 60.24% overall and 51.57% winrate when not in a division. Maybe I actually know how to play this ship as a battleship, what it basically is, and don't try to go for some weird style that even when it actually meets the criteria of having a CV due to division, somehow doesn't produce better results. Maybe I actually played other T7 BBs and can make more valid comparisons? I was hesitant to bring out the stats argument yesterday, but if you continue acting like I have somehow no idea how to play this ship, I feel the need to point out that you should maybe tone down your attitude a bit.

My hope too. The ship not only is pretty situational and an insult to anyone who ever wanted a decent T8 IJN premium DD competitive with Loyang or Kidd (and not limited to collaboration and hardly ever on sale like Harekaze). It also is typically the Tirpitz of DDs, often about as useless as could be.

If I can manage to cap while staying at half speed or more, it's quoite possible to stay in one general location at 1/4 speed. And deny large parts of the map for CVs. As to how to play an AA Gneisenau... Play it like your normal Gneisenau, with a bit extra focus on taking positions that maximise effective AA cover. But as Gneisenau likes forward positions anyway, that's nothing new. If you however are required to change gameplay drastically compared to normal Gneisenau, you kind of should reconsider your priorities, because first and foremost, Gneisenau is a battleship, supposed to do a battleship's job and it is not an AA cruiser that can just deny airspace from a good position and support from there. Gneisenau is a decent ship. I wouldn't call it OP. The guns are derpy at times (but not too bad) and the ship is still not like later Germans best in hp for its tier and thus a bit more fragile (also due to 25 mm bow plating), but it can do a good job. Generally though, it is hard to call it OP, given many of the other T7 BBs are no slouches either. Colorado is slow, but packs a punch, Nagato has appreciable speed and best guns at the tier, KGV is alright, DoY is a bit worse, but still ok, Scharnhorst is at least as good as Gneisenau, Nelson is quite strong and so is the Hood. For something like T7 ranked, I'd consider Nagato, Nelson or Hood to be better choices over the Gneisenau, due to more consistent performance (and unlike the others they are neither slow nor do they have a gun caliber too low to overmatch).

Amagi showing side still eats incredible amounts of damage and unlike German turtleback at sufficient range, you get citadelled. So, showing side is still not a great idea. Never is.

I played with enough Richelieus on my team and the enemy team and have enough of a brain to know that the Richelieu is not playing the same niche as Bismarck. Which anyone could figure out, as apart from the gun caliber and number, they are quite different. And thus the idea that Richelieu somehow takes away the purpose of Bismarck is laughable. Even if a well-played Richelieu is as much a BB as a Bismarck, by that logic the Bismarck was obsolete upon delivery, as Amagi and NC always had better guns. But when you actually look at the ship, consider its actual strengths and weaknesses as a battleship, tell me, how many other non-German BBs have hydro? Exactly one, the Duke of Yorck, and it pays heavily for it. And now go, tell me how your Richelieu is going to make that obsolete. I don't need to have to play the ship to know that the Richelieu has not powercrept the Bismarck. But if you want to dismiss me on that matter, sure. I'm fairly confident though that people exist who played both and agree with me.

I guess IJN is the exception, having an actual citadel and no real AA unless specced into.

No. In fact, I run the same secondary spec I run on Bismarck and on FdG, because it served me well and I rebought Gneisenau just to see how much one can get out of these secondaries, given at their tier, they are very good once in range, but 8 km range is limited. I kind of play this ship thus as a smaller Bismarck, with a bit extra attention paid to enemy ships, as Bismarck can tank a good bit more, so Gneisenau has to be a bit more careful. And unlike Bismarck, 8 km is not enough to cover a whole cap in secondaries from one edge. My playstyle thus is to push up with the other ships, maybe 3 to 5 km behind the DD and depending on matchup and information available, support from a closer position or not (vs T9, it pays off to not yolo into a cap). If running into enemies, engage those, if there are too many and we have to bail as a collective, you can kite them from mid-range (as you know, long range the ship is crap), until you are at a defensible position again. If the opponent is manageable though, engaging them from 10 km is pretty ok, getting closer when I don't have to worry about unspotted DDs torping. But regardless, I typically retain some speed. Even if I drop to half speed or quarter speed, to avoid changing position too much, I typically have a few knots of movement always, because there is no point in stopping. If you are at the right range, just maintain this range relative to target, if you need to get closer, turn in, if you need to get away, turn out. If you need to avoid torpedoes, make preemptive adjustments to the course. Gneisenau, like all BBs, has no point standing still, because standing still only is a good option if you absolutely have to be in this one place. Typically, when you camp some island or something, where you cannot just move out. But BBs and heavy cruisers often are more about relative position, how far they are from the opponent and for that, they need speed to have an influence on that. If I stop and someone runs off, or rushes me, I lose valuable seconds speeding up. If I already am at speed, I can react instantly. While an atlanta has to hug terrain because of lack of survivability, BBs don't have that issue. And yes, Propulsion Mod 2 helps speed up. But if you never go to a complete standstill and never drop to speeds where the Propulsion Mod 2 matters (below 6 knots), Steering gears mod allows faster rudder adjustments and Damage Control Mod (my actual choice) adds valuable tankiness against fires. By relying on Propulsion Mod 2 instead of just keeping some speed always, you basically lose a valuable module, as you could boost things that pay off more. And you basically could play your role as AA ship and close range just as well on 1/4 speed as on standstill. Scharnhorst isn't that radically different in playstyle and I was considering buying one, but got an Atlanta instead, as I was looking forward to that more (it is more unique compared to Scharnhorst). It's funny though that you think I am sniping, when I run secondary spec and don't even bothered buying the range upgrade, because I never found myself not feeling like I have better things to save up towards.

I don't know about you, but I typically play my BBs, but especially the Gneisenau as a roaming threat, meaning while I stay around, I don't stop. Propulsion Mod 2 is basically there for island or smoke campers, who sit in a place and need to get moving quickly on short notice. A Gneisenau typically doesn't stop moving. It has no real reason to stop moving.

After losing a few planes, they also won't go for you or they would as well fly into Atlanta again. As for dodging torps, a BB dodges by staying at the move. Unless you stop comppletely, which is pretty dumb, you get no benefit from Propulsion Mod 2. Get Steering Mod 2 for quicker rudder shift or Damage Control Mod 2 for dealing with fires after you learned how to dodge on normal rudder shift. Edit: Even with added info, Propulsion mod is worthless in that gamestyle, as it only helps accelerate from standstill to moving.

Go buy an Atlanta. That's a ship that actually is useful for this kind of play.

Contrary to popular belief, you can hit things with German 38 cm guns. And it actually hurts and isn't just a lot of overpens. And someone who thinks there's not much purpose to German BBs in the game after the French got introduced certainly doesn't know how to handle the Germans. Germans have their niche and a well-played high tier German is certainly no joke. It's mostly potatoes giving the Bismarck a bad rep.

The only thing the Richelieu has over the Bismarck is 8 guns front, allowing bow tanking. That's it. And speed boost, but that's easily the least useful consumable gimmick of any BB line that has such (compared to RN super heal and German hydro). If the Bismarck likewise angles though., neither side is likely to land huge salvos on the other, because they both cannot overmatch bow plating. Assuming both are secondary-specced, the Bismarck's secondaries actually can hurt Richelieu, Richelieu in return only can bet on fire RNG, because Bismarck's armour deck and strong upper belt mean that even with IFHE, very few parts of the ship can actually be penetrated. Without IFHE, only the superstructure can be penetrated. If the Richelieu is not secondary specced, just move the Bismarck up to where you have the Richelieu in secondary range and burn it down with ease, while bouncing shells. Richelieu in reverse won't outrun you and if the Richelieu turns, it gives broadside. And against a Richelieu that provides enough broadside, you deal pretty similar amounts of damage. Outside duels, as WoWS is not a 1v1 simulator, if you can make use of all your 8 guns (and you can also just shoot a different ship with the rear guns), Bismarck has better dpm than Richelieu, having the same caliber and number of barrels, but 26 seconds base reload instead of 30 seconds. Gascogne as a premium, doesn't have the convenient Richelieu gun layout, while for BB vs BB action, Tirpitz obviously can be even meaner. And if you want to argue about "But maybe you only met potato French", I may point out that most people in this thread seem to agree that the Germans are infamous for attracting morons. So, that point can be thrown right back at you. Honestly, I got more respect for the North Carolina with its good accuracy and improved normalisation angles than for some Richelieu that is the least threatening BB at T8 to a Bismarck, aside from maybe Monarch.

I lol'd. German BBs still are in a very comfortable spot and the notion the French made them obsolete is simply laughable. Just alone because the core strength of the Germans, their sheer tankiness, is not something the French can replicate. Frankly, of all the lines, I consider the French to be amongst the least tanky. I still play Bismarck frequently, it's a rather solid ship that maybe has not the broadside weight of Amagi or NC, but it certainly can hold its own against a Richelieu and especially Gascogne. I consider Amagi a better ship allround, but return to Bismarck because it's comfortable to play, not just for the potato-friendly armour, but the overall handling of the ship and the damage resistance allow for some really fun experiences.

On average, maybe. In capable hands, I consider the IJN line better across pretty much all tiers up to T8. T9 and T10 I cannot comment on.

It's the IJN DD branch. Soon to be joined by Kitakaze and Harugumo, two ships that certainly could need some help.

For self-defence, yes. For fleet defence, Gneisenau has most of its dps at ranges that matter and at calibers that get buffed by Manual AA.

Most of the T6 cruisers did still serve in WWII. The reason Cleveland deserved T8 was because it had to be artificially lowered in quality to not be OP, but anachronism alone doesn't mean much.

Historical accuracy. A few days of the year, ships would fight action-picked battles. The remainder is fleet logistics. If they don't just die...

Just because a line is popular and people play it like crap doesn't mean it gets buffed. Look at Shima, which at long last got a concealment buff, but otherwise, IJN DDs continue being mediocre.

For Bismarck/Tirpitz in randoms, I'd say it doesn't matter as much. In Ranked, yeah, it isn't a great pick (still can be an asset though) For the T9, the FdG is often a worse asset than most other T9s, as there actually exist excellent T9 BBs like Alsace, Missouri and Musashi to just crap on it. Großer Kurfürst is eh. I consider Conqueror the worse ship for relying on such an ally.

I consider the "knock out engines three times" worse. If you get this crap in a BB, your best bet actually would be to load HE and spam it at cruisers, hoping the blast knocks out the engine. Obviously a rather dumb way to play though with most BBs.

Mogami was laid down 1931, commissioned 1935, sunk 1944. Cleveland was laid down 1940, commissioned 1942, decommisioned in 1947. Mikhail Kutuzov was laid down in 1951, commissioned in 1954 and decommissioned in 2000, now a museum ship. Mogami was in her final years when Cleveland entered the stage, but neither served at the same time as Kutuzov and Cleveland was already destined for the scrapyard when the Kutuzov was being built (which was commissioned a decade after Mogami was sunk). It certainly is not like you don't have anachronism at T8. Or how about WW2 era Dunkerque, fighting BB opponents that are all WWI-era at her tier? And why would anyone understand this logic of yours without any explanation? You should keep in mind more the people who actually read your posts and what kind of information they might or might not have.