HaachamaShipping

Alaska.

Even if one would put KGV or Nelson at T8, what on earth are you going to put on T9 and T10? Vanguard wasn't so much a better BB as it was a budget design that was decent, but not a real step up that warrants T9. Lion at least was a serious concept though and T3 to T7 are all historical. Issue with the Royal Navy is, it didn't build much high-end material during WWII and we don't need like half a dozen T5 or T6 ships, only 2 for a single line.

POI-- & NAN0 community now already at 70 people. But we still have room.

Siegfried has better pen, Ägir has better dpm. Siegfried has overmatch, Ägir has better HE qualities. And while German HE frankly sucks, making both absolute trash tier for pure HE games, Siegfried is in a league of its own compared to the other supercruisers. Ägir is basically Alaska with less alpha, but same fire chance. Also, Ägir like Alaska, Azuma and other such supercruisers can citadel cruisers at pretty much any range. Siegfrieds pen mostly matters vs BBs. Note that while linear, dispersion is not such a straightforward thing. All dispersion follows a an a*x+b formula and for example at 0 km, Ägir has 40% larger dispersion than Siegfried, at 10 km about 30% and at 20 km about 26%. https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_and_Aiming#Shell_dispersion I bought Ägir for 1 million free exp, because I had the spare and couldn't be bothered to get a T10 DD. I already have Alaska, I have Yoshino, so need no Azuma and I thought I'd get to see how the German 305s square up. Overall, ship is ok for a T9 cruiser. As a person that played a fair bit of Yoshino, the Ägir shares much in terms of agility, concealment and the presence of torps, though Ägir is notably worse in many aspects (as you'd expect when comparing to a T10 cruiser). In terms of survivability, Ägir, like Siegfried is pretty ok, but people definitely should not compare it to Odin. Odin gets BB levels of armour and turtleback, supercruisers don't get that. Ägir/Siegfried can and will get citadelled from the side and very much can be murdered through the bow, meaning that in comparison to a Yoshino, I find Ägir to be very similar, as, yes, it is more forgiving when caught broadside, but as you never want to risk it anyway, you have to mind the angle and bait on the side. If you get shot in the bow, you might just lose most of your hp. Ägir doesn't have the spaced side plating, but a 90 mm upper belt, that makes it actually quite resistant to HE at times.

Don't worry, we'll be back soon enough. And AL Littorio is an interesting, though absolutely bonkers premium, not just reskinned Roma.

The issue is, both happens and neither is in the hands of the player with AA. You can have a silly CV that kills their planes on the two flak of a Harekaze, you can have good players who may lose maybe 3 of their Lexington planes while striking a Gearing with the remaining 6. In which case AA shot down something, but those 3 planes are nothing compared to the damage to the ship. AA is generally thus woefully inadequate to deal with good CV players, the kind that are an actual major threat to anyone.

Ägir's AA is comparably ok. But yes, good CV will not care too much. Also, she only gets hydro, no defAA. 4x3

Just wait for 1-2 month, when it'll be "Cruisers are dying", blaming a new line of AP carriers and good old overmatch BBs for wrecking cruisers or some such. Clearly the less sensationalist WoWS CC...

Unverifiable claims and considering them equally valid as their dismissal is not "reasonable". So yes, I'm claiming that. Otherwise, I guess I could as well make a topic about how the mountains on Two Brothers are this tall, because their core is made up of all the doubloons the players invested. And every year they grow by a few metres. Can you verify it? No. Is it sensible? About half as much as the best claims put forward here. Certainly at least on the level as the worst we saw. Is it worth wasting time and server space to discuss? Likely not, because at the end its unverifiable and people will believe what they want to believe. Is it increasing our knowledge? Likely not. Some might actually come out dumber due to falling for the fallacy.

There is a clear idea of where the burden of proof falls and trying to say "noone needs proof, let's just discuss" is barely better than being adherent of the conspiracy theory itself. Both is based on a similar unscientific and irrational approach. And if you want to say that the requirement of rational argument based on credible evidence and not just hearsay and baseless conjecture is as bad as irrational belief in whatever and less reasonable than whatever "middle ground" idea, than that itself is pretty silly and a golden mean fallacy.

Never. Was removed from shop for being OP af. If you are into spending craptons of money, you can go try your luck with Santa containers and hope it's in there.

Frankly, what makes Sinop and Kremlin so incredibly dumb is not (just) their guns. It's also incredible armour and some soft stats like Kremlin's concealment and rudder shift. Also silly damecon. But frankly, I could live with Kremlin being the way it is if it had for example a 50 mm deck and would thus take damage from at least some cruiser HE, not just Ägir and Siegfried or the odd IFHE build. Sinop too is most of all powercreeping Nagato and Colorado due to armour, because if the Sinop was as squishy as those, the guns on their own wouldn't be better. They'd just be different. But if you get a decent set of guns on a very survivable hull with good T7 speed and a short CD damecon, well, guess what happens... Meanwhile Slava really is just the absolutely insane guns.

3.5-4 km is where I usually start the run, unless I can abuse an island to cover the distance up to 3.5 km, then I might start it behind the island. It should be so you avoid the last wall of flak and no longer need to worry about other walls. 5s is not required for this.

Standard CV build I use for IJN is Aircraft restoration skill, Improved engines, Improved engine Boost, Torp acceleration, Survivability Expert, Aircraft Armour, Concealment Expert, Last Gasp. runs on any IJN CV. DE looks cool, but you already get over 50% fire chance, 5% more isn't worth it over boosting aircraft survivability. DE is good on British CVs that have lower fire chance but more bombs. Modules, just go with standard options, concealment build, torp bomber hp and whatever you want for squadron attack duration or torp speed mod or whatever. Nothing of that is incredibly influential. 6.1 km plane detection means you still got to cross through the 5.8 km flak gauntlet most ships put up. If you start attack run outside the 6.1 km, you just make it hard to dodge flak and get most of your squadron shredded. Thus, you most likely are going to start attack runs from like 3.5-4 km anyway and the 5s are wasted.

Yuudachi exists, lol.

Getting overmatched at T7 was going to happen regardless of what they put at T7. QE at T6 gets overmatched, Nagato and Colorado that were at T7 get overmatched, Sinop and Gneisenau partly get overmatched. Nelson gets overmatched. If there is one issue with the KGV, then that in true British BB fashion, it mostly has overtuned HE. If one considers AP properties, it makes very much sense to throw KGV at T7, then the Monarch as an upgunned KGV at T8. Just people then get pissed when Monarch cannot spam HE as well as KGV can and instead has better AP. And let's not pretend that KGV guns sucked only in their overmatch, their AP pen is also absolute trash. Their entire AP performance can be boiled down to "exists" and "has good dpm when it pens". And hey, if you really think KGV was incredibly viable at T8 by just getting flanks and not just spamming HE at everything, may I point at Monarch that brings exact same hull, but better AP dpm and pen? Clearly Monarch works incredibly well as flanking ship. And if you want low caliber high tier BBs, you need to give the ship something to make up for the crappy gun caliber. Alsace, Bourgogne and Pommern for example are all ships that kind of represent the concept at high tier.

And basing it on mission objectives and/or monetary investment wouldn't need an effort between departments? Because let's be real, if you try to make randomness less random, you are not trying to do that randomly, so you need a motivation. We cannot observe a mission-based bias, because then everyone would struggle to get missions done, which isn't true. We cannot observe investment-based bias, because some people invested a lot, yet get nice win streaks or horrendous losses, others invest nothing, same result. Bot behaviour is absolutely predictable to the point it becomes abusable. Bots never deviate from standard programmed behaviour and this actually is quite observeable. Bots for example will aim at the first thing that they spot and that is in range and will prioritise that target until there are targets at a range where they are coded to switch to not get obliterated up close while sniping at range. Consequently, in bot-heavy modes, first target to get spotted often gets focused down. Similarly, bots will absolutely ignore players that are unspotted, as they lack any object permanence. If you smoke up in front of them, they don't care any longer, you no longer exist to them. you can easily farm torp hit ribbons over multiple battles by just torp rushing bots that do not keep a safety distance from smokes. You cannot ever farm torp ribbons form torping at distance, because bots seem to avoid such torps preemptively. Lastly, bots always aim center of mass on the waterline. Some shells deviate, due to dispersion, but this is likely one of the most abusable behaviours of bots if you know how to use armour... Next, Two Brothers isn't exactly harder to get BB kills in than most other maps and if you ask "who is to prove that x" here, then I have to point out, the burden of proof actually is on you. Can you show that WG consistently gives you AFK players for example? How often do ships just lose their last few thousand hp at once? Surviving on less than 1k hp is rare, as one would expect. And again, can we observe this objectively, consistently over an extended period of time with clear tendencies? If you can do it, feel free to bring it up, but so far, there is none of that, just baseless allegations. If that is enough for proof, I could as well just counter by saying it took me 5 games in PEF to get a mere win and 1.1k base exp for missions, yet when I need damage in French BBs, I get over 90k average in Richelieu and Alsace with single games of over 190k damage in 6.5 minutes, oneshotting ships with single turrets. Same player, same investment, grinding directives, just days apart. Graf Spee is a reward because half the player base seems to own one already. And if anyone thinks that someone was more likely to purchase Odin for full cost instead of 3.5k doubloons, they fail at marketing. Every further 1.75k doubloons needed just decreases the likelyhood that people buy it. Same with PR. PR is rare for a reason. Basically, you are looking at a good bit of effort to mess with RNG just to mess with incentives, with a high likelihood to reduce the incentive to buy stuff. Because let's be real, the way PR was sold makes it unlikely much was handed out in rewards, but at the same time, nothing much was sold, the ship is unlikely to be sold again for a while if ever, it likely sold less than the PEF the year before (even accounting for the fact that PEF was like a tenth of the cost or one third if you bought the largest bundle) and just pissed people off massively. This is what you look at and then you want to claim WG is actually messing with RNG to drag things out needlessly or not for some unfathomable reason? The patent for the most part is actually pretty boring revealing little of value. The usually quoted section basically hints that people with winstreaks get uptiered more often, loss streaks get downtiered more often. It has little to do with RNG, because the random battle matchmaker in general is not RNG when selecting ships. It prioritises getting mirror matches within 1 minute of time and will force a match after 5 minutes and has all kinds of rules, potentially opting for the uptier/downtier bias at last when there is enough ships in queue. But apart from map and battle mode, MM has no RNG. It just is not observed by those in queue, but its like throwing coins into a coin counting machine and then calling the nice stacks of sorted coins "RNG".

WG realised that upscaling Akizuki to Harugumo gave them a terrible ship that was way too poor at anything to matter, so they gave it the pen to matter, instead of addressing the issue that noone needed a fiffth gun turret on the ship. You could as well slightly buff the Kitakaze and put it at T10 and it'd be more workable.

Stalingrad is an oversized Moskva. If you like a high impact cruiser that can punish other ships, yet also can be pretty unforgiving if you mess up positioning, go for it. Bourgogne has the worst T10 tankiness against anything that doesn't do cit hits. HE, SAP, light AP all can wreck Bourgogne, but it is fast, has incredible dpm with reload booster and thus takes French BB to the next level. If you liked French BB line, this is certainly good. Shikishima is a Yamato for memes. Straight up worse in most areas, the two points where it is notable better are AA and secondaries. AA doesn't matter much though and running a Yamato on secondary build is sketchy. If you are fully BB main, Bourgogne likely is best.

As said before, if that was your point, then you cannot cede on a strong T10 and point at the preceeding ships. Nothing even indicates OP doesn't dislike Kremlin or Venezia.

This is a topic on Implacable. Even Implacable can do ok against T10s (the issue is others can do better in general). Lexington certainly does not struggle, if played properly. It's likely the most newbie-friendly and forgiving tech tree T8 CV. Just pick targets properly and plan approaches properly.

Problem then is, you cannot blame the ship and you cannot blame the tier. You cannot claim, like in the post I originally quoted, that a strong T10 doesn't matter because the tiers prior to the high tiers cannot be skipped, when the ships themselves aren't bad, just a subjective experience is. Either you just call it in generally "my least favourite tech tree lines" based on your experience and dismiss strength outright or you factor in strength and at the point where you cede on a strong T10, you basically cannot say strength doesn't matter.

Trento is middle of the pack, Zara is upper half at a tier of actually pretty good cruisers. Just because they aren't ships that can decimate most ships they run into doesn't mean they are trash.

Pyotr, Sinop, Vladi are all so utterly garbage, right? Italian cruisers too, ships prior to the Venezia are such trash. No hydro, no radar, DDs utterly disrespect your cruiser. Right?

WG has indeed shown to be greedy and sometimes questionable in their conduct. However, so far, I haven't seen WG be in any way capable of actually nailing finetuning numbers by design. You see a company that looks at CVs, sees the damage average is acceptable, WR is acceptable, thus it is fine and also belongs into CB. Balancing of interactions is absolute garbage and takes into account the experience of players only after months of ceaseless complaints from large parts of the playerbase, sometimes not even then. Matchmaking changes similarly seem not too concerned with such experiences, screwing over several tiers hard. Remember when T8 was considered terrible, yet there were so many premiums there? The game is littered with evidence of utter incompetence in taking into account anything beyond the superficial value of numbers, so even if the company could be greedy enough to tinker with numbers, it is hard to say they'd be competent enough to finetune a matchmaking system that artificially improves the experience of certain players to potentially get them to buy stuff. You are looking at a feat that'd be a pretty big stunt for actually quite mediocre gains from a company that messes up far safer things that could net them far more.