HaachamaShipping

Which is why among tech tree ships Goliath and Venezia come after Petropavlovsk in WR? T9 Drake comes first, before Riga, then Brindisi. T8 has Albemarle, Amalfi and then Charles Martel. Clearly, British CAs and Italian CAs are absolutely terrible and Venezia did not dominate a whole CB season with its presence and made the Zao unemployed. Fiji and Daring are just the best in their trees. You still got other ships in there like Jutland and among premiums you got stuff like Cossack. Belfast '43 also isn't bad, it's just balanced. Performance-wise, it isn't overperforming (like old Belfast), but it clearly isn't underperforming either. Indeed, the RN isn't even close to screwed over.

Before removal? Thunderer. In general? Can't speak on Pommern or Salem, but rest is pretty solid. Thunderer is one of the best BBs in the game, with low skill floor and high skill ceiling, due to its incredible accuracy, great handling, great conceal and strong ammo choices. Yoshino is often overlooked, but if you mind your angling, the ship can take quite some punishment and her range and good HE damage output for a supercruiser, combined with accurate AP make her a pretty decent ship overall. Certainly in randoms with CVs and all, having 21.3 km range + spotter plane makes it far less punishing than any short-ranged cruiser. Marceu is overall a good ship, though it requires a good bit of skill. The ship often is compared to Kleber and like Kleber you got insane speed, good survivability and no smoke. However with the shell arcs being questionable, you cannot just play it like Kleber, unless your enemy is dumb enough to just go straight and predictable, because hitting at range isn't easy. So you play it as part-time Kleber, part-time Colbert, sometimes even as parttime Yolo-Emilio, when you go around a corner at 54 knots and shove torps up someone. I think the ship basically is flexible, but it shines most when someone has a proper grasp on what they can do with it in any given moment. Georgia is a fast BB. Very fun, but if you go for BB, I'd go for Thunderer instead.

All ships are faster than they would be IRL, because matches should be decided within 20 minutes, not last hours or the better part of a day. Similarly, planes, torps, shells, etc. are sped up as well.

Well, maybe doesn't matter in the context here, but if I take my personal stats for example, if this is solo only, there's like double the amount of people above me than if this was overall. And I'm not even unicum, so this is the difference between being somewhat disappointed with the player base and being quite disappointed with the player base.

While I doubt there's a more up-to-date distribution (and I doubt it got better), do you know whether this is solo WR only?

Which British cruiser line is appalling? Also, I think the nation of Thunderer, Belfast, Fiji Daring and such shouldn't complain about being "screwed over". Planes are slow, alpha strike is great, DoT potential is good, plane reserves are near infinite. The Ark Royal is a pretty solid, one of the best T6 CVs overall. Except when you find the right target. Ark Royal for example can bomb a DD for up to ~7k, Implacable isn't exactly great, but vs the likes of French and British BBs it still can do a good number and the Audacious can do nice numbers also on the USN, because of its 40+ mm of pen. Bigger issue is that you are basically relying on the fires and such to make up for it, planes are slow and regeneration isn't good, so overall they are weaker than others most of the time. But when a British CV player that knows how to play the ship singles you out as their damage farm, certainly there's little reason to laugh.

No. They do their job. And it isn't to absolutely crap over anything in range. It'd be absolutely stupid if all the BBs had the accuracy of a GZ where you basically can't show up within 9.4 km or you basically just get deleted.

It would need to be a 75% hp Kremlin with SE, as you cannot detonate a full hp ship with one torp.

You got some proof for that theory?

And only the capable players stay up? I'm very skeptical about this claim.

Isn't the only precedent of a removed T10 the Smolensk? Not counting event ship Pay2Rico. And it's not even been a year since removal of that ship. Also, I would say, such logic holds up, IF one is prepared to spend the money on Alaska. It's not cheap.

Please note the differences in how KOTS is played and how randoms is played though. With randoms, much of it is up to you. Competitive modes like KOTS and any non-CV T10 CB (one can dream, lol), you'll likely first have to talk with the rest of the team how you approach this battle and you are a facilitator first and foremost. In a proper CB team, you should be able to count on your team mates that when it is time to go, they got your back, in randoms, yeah, no. So, in randoms, don't just rush into caps. For starters, there's many more DDs that see play in randoms that are different and some of them just don't care about your radar. For example, if you run into a Grozovoi, not just does the radar not give you a vision advantage (as you outspot it anyway), but the Grozovoi can gun you down if you got no help and you try to pick a fight. But you won't see ships like Grozovoi in CB. Similarly, in randoms, you will find enough people who might throw their ship away, but in suiciding take large amounts of your hp with them, making it much harder to do anything afterwards. A yoloing Marceau, Kleber or even a Shima that uses its guns and doesn't smoke can be a very annoying if not outright murderous enemy. So in random you play conservative, use your radar for those ambushes where you know you can get them and they won't just ruin the rest of the match in return because they spot you in front of the entire enemy team or similar crap.

Best vision control at T10 only revaled by radar YY, though Smaland isn't absolutely gimped in main armament. And in KOTS, if the Smaland can catch the enemy DD and allow its team a timely kill on the enemy DD, that's a very big deal, because even if it isn't great at torping things, it is better at it than a dead DD. Also, the Smaland threat really limits what you can do with an opposing DD that isn't a Smaland. Lastly, it should be noted that a supercharged speed boost and a repair can do a lot to get out of a bad situation alive and recover instead of dying or being absolutely crippled for the remainder of the game. And a DDs job on KOTS is often very much not the damage dealing, but the spotting, helping control key areas and staying alive to continue doing that job.

For the most part, the game is fine, CVs are an issue, because there's not a real "counterplay" except to try to minimise the amount of damage a strike thus by maneuvering to present the least target area and hoping you waste their time enough. Many times, that can be absolutely impossible, as it means broadsiding the enemy team and just dying even faster, which sucks. But apart from CVs, I don't see a big class imbalance and the weaknesses of BBs are compensated by a good number of strengths.

I feel like WG isn't the only one that has to remember this is a game, it has to have some balance. Maybe a T10 DD should have a fighting chance against a T10 BB and not just get absolutely demolished as would be the case IRL because a BB is just a way better (and more expensive) gun platform? IRL, something like a Des Moines would have no place fighting a Montana, because it'd just get utterly demolished. So can you please heed your own advice and not be whiny about BBs having drawbacks to bring them in line? It's not like BBs are suffering either, there's a reason the MM queue is predominantly BBs most of the time, BBs still do on average the most damage and survive the most, despite having worse dpm. Also, contrary to popular belief, a BB is as likely to be set on fire as any other class. It just burns twice as long, which against something like Smolensk doesn't matter, because if you are under sustained fire, you get set on fire again just as you put it out, so fire duration is pointless. But BBs have the same fire resistance and same amount of potential fires on their ship as any other class, though they are on 80% of the tiers the sole class where it is standard that every member of the class gets a repair party.

Hayate isn't getting withdrawn in 3 months.

First of, the secondary guns are a different gun from the main battery guns on Mainz. München however has the same gun as the secondaries. Second, imagine if the 15 cm guns on secondaries fired as fast, far and accurate as the München's main battery. It'd be absolutely stupid when a Scharnhorst would basically carry 3/4 of a same tier cruiser as secondary armament and rain accurate HE shells out to 16+ km. That'd be absolutely broken.

First rule of how to radar cruiser: Don't get stuck on the fact that your cruiser has radar. Many people needlessly throw their ship away because they feel they need to radar, then are either in a suicidal position where they die or in a useless position where they do nothing other than radar. Alaska is among the very few radar cruisers that won't just outright die when being out in the open, but it still isn't played best when rushing in. Frankly, the best way to support would be to be close enough to your friendly DD to still reliably hit things, but far enough to not make it impossible to disengage by not firing for 20s and steaming away, then picking away at whatever support the enemy has at the cap (cruisers, BBs) and punishing whatever silly enemy cruiser might rush your DD. Once you know the enemy support is mostly gone and you won't get focused down to death, then you can push. Alaska is first and foremost a cruiser killer, not a DD killer and throwing away radars for no good reason can cost you when you need it. It also only has 10 km range, while your ship is spotted from 12.2 km or so away (if I remember correctly). Apart from that, Alaska is likely the overall strongest T9 competitive pick in existence. Certainly for any ranked. For CB, I'd also not be surprised if Alaska saw usage, due to just bringing insane survivability for a cruiser, great guns and a radar. It is likely the best T9 cruiser overall and I cannot recommend the ship enough. I'm not sure if a supercruiser is what you like to play and you seem set on the Smaland (which is not a bad choice), but if in any way you can fit it in (still 3 months before they leave the armory), do it. Alaska also is great for randoms, as a T9 premium makes more credits than Smaland and is among the most fun ships, imo, also due to how forgiving the ship is, making it a less stressful playing experience.

If in thousands of battles you only manage to be top of the team but can't even win more than half of them, then you aren't really a good player either. And fact is, most people don't have only 10 games and we aren't routinely encountering people with two-digit amounts of games. But someone in the four-digit numbers of games with poor winrate just is not good. And there's no point adding such a stupid stat like you suggest, which not just is pointless (having a good winrate only gives bragging rights, you don't get rewarded or penalised by the game for it), but also just serves to compensate for the ego of people who can't win, but think that damage farming gives them some entitlement to a better evaluation.

Yeah, first I wanted to say that I don't think it was a good position for a Neptune (the only other T9 ship with 10 km torp range and a bit over 10 km concealment), but then I saw the gun range and Neptune has 16.5 km as far as I remember. Drake is a good bit less bad when all you want to do is just delay that flank so your team doesn't get overrun from the West. Nice to see Drake players.

Is that a Drake?

11.3 km would still be acceptable for some cruisers. Certainly for any "cruiser" with 18+ km of range (+spotter) and no radar, so no reason to get much closer. Generally, for playing around with stealth, if you don't want DD to crap on it, pay attention to where the DDs are operating. And no DD will be gone all match, unless they are afk, worst case, you only at times see their torps, still tells you where they are. Keep something inbetween you and the DD and it's fine.

US or German.

That's an issue though mostly based on how poor T9 CLs are compared to Alaska, not that CL in general is a concept that is underpowered and supercruisers in general being OP. For CLs, the exceptions would be Nevsky and Mainz, but most CLs get good dpm in exchange. As to supercruisers being tankier than normal cruisers... depends. Point isn't Stalingrad not being tanky. It's that many supercruisers like the Stalingrad or Yoshino are tanky only while angle, unlike Alaska and PR. And if you consider the punishment ships can take while properly angled, ships like Petropavlovsk, Goliath and Moskva aren't exactly easy to kill either, making the supercruiser's improved tankiness a bit less of a "broken" issue than it might appear as. At that point you could also just buff it to the normal 25 mm and then they'd not get wrecked by supercruisers either. And most 25+ mm cruisers have a pretty decent chance against supercruisers, just because of the difference in effective dpm and burn time. There exist enough "good" T9s though. Brindisi isn't even bad, it's arguably a bigger upgrade over the Amalfi than Amalfi was over Zara. Drake is tier for tier often viewed as stronger than Goliath. Buffalo is also a pretty strong ship overall.

I'd disagree. The main issue with that isn't that supercruisers are too strong, Alaska is. And Alaska vs Neptune basically hard-counters that Nep in a way, you could as well ask how the hell is Lion supposed to coexist with Musashi? Eats cits from any angle. You can't even bait reliably, because the cit deck is 32 mm. But Neptune getting overmatched isn't even restricted to supercruisers, Henri, Cheshire, Drake and Goliath would be able to do that too. None of those are supercruisers. If we take same-tier Drake, if you don't broadside, the ship can be actually pretty hard to kill too and certainly is for anything that doesn't overmatch 25 mm. And sure, unlike the Alaska, Drake can't broadside and survive. But then, neither can half the supercruisers, given a broadsiding Azuma, Yoshino or Stalingrad are pretty much free damage for anything with ~180-210 mm of pen. Given the armour strength, target size and heal, I'd consider Drake straight up tankier than Azuma. If CL vs supercruiser at T9 seems horrid, I'd say it's because there's some of the tankiest supercruisers at the tier, while pretty much every T9 CL is among the crappiest ships in their line, being HMS All Citadel-No Armour, USS My guns are Cleveland, my firing angles are GK and Soviet Navy ship 404 DPM not found. Most of them don't even look good when compared to regular heavy cruisers. Meanwhile at T10, light cruisers look a good bit better with ships like Nevsky or Smolensk around and while Minotaur is still easily devastated and Worcester has seen better days, their dpm still is a very serious matter.