Camperdown

Slightly ot: is 3x3 brawls strictly a divisional thing to do or might one also consider playing solo?

Although I don't enjoy T10, I do play T8-9. Interestingly, I often don't mind being uptiered. Especially in some of my favourite ships. I positively enjoy making T10 life miserable in my Lightning

I avoid T10 for said reasons. Not in a principled way, but I just don't like playing it. I did the T10 ranked last season, and that was fine.

As a DD main playing cruisers too but no BB at the moment, they are a non-issue to me. But I can't judge their effect on BBs.

Just curious about your handle. So you are the administration office of De Ruyter? And you spelled his name wrong? You're fired!

WG appreciates your feedback, it helps to improve the game

I thought their official name was Satan crates?

Blimey. Low player numbers? Now how can that happen? Mebbe they have been listening to their player base too much?

Hi Lars, I believe that players who were inactive during the skill rework can contact customer support and have their captain skills reset. I did not do this myself, but have read earlier on this forum that this could be done.

It makes you wonder. Do they think we are stupid? Are they too stupid to realise the crap they are spouting is transparent to a 3 year old child? How can this seem like a smart move in any universe? Wow. Just wow. Or rather WoWs ....

Again, I disagree. The better players dominate their flank, use some of their HP to tank and thus optimise their chances to win. Sure you have some players that just look out for themselves and the good ones among them will have very good stats. But you don't need to play like that to be good. In fact, I have the impression that a lot of the campers aren't that good and just camp because if they try to advance they just die like flies. I have asked campers to help and sometimes they do advance, but then like a maniac. And die. I for myself could probably improve my stats a bit if I played more conservatively, but that doesn't match my temperament

I disagree. If you support your teammates, have measured aggression and try to dominate your flank, all while not taking excessive risk, you can have a good WR and have fun and play in a way that is positive for your team too. Farming damage is boring. Now if your team sucks, ofc you adjust your play style.

Why can't we yet play naval battles with Dutch cruisers?

Silly question. Hell no!

Nice and a bit emotional to see Rotterdam harbour pre-bombardment in the game. Thanks WG

Agreed. There is clear dissatisfaction among the long term WoWs player base. At the same time subs will attract some new players. Unfortunately it all boils down to dumbing the game down for an unskilled player base. I dislike that, but as there is little competition and I am a naval buff, there is little choice for me except putting up with the crap WG throws at me.

Your WG job offer is in the mail

The new British shells were tested post-war in firing tests and proved effective. The German 30,5 cm skl 50 was certainly a good gun. The reason why I am making these posts because the outcome of Jutland and the resulting recriminations have muddied the water with regards to the quality of German and British capital ship and gun design. Which I find unfortunate. It has taken me the better part of 30 years of naval hobby to get a clear understanding of these. There are many myths and misconceptions. British BCs were poorly designed. German materiel was superior. Etc. All these do not help for clear understanding of that period of naval warfare. German capital ships were well designed and powerful. However, the use of smaller caliber main guns was a mistake. British BCs had relatively weak protection. However their loss at Jutland/Skagerrak was caused by unwise bypassing of cordite handling safety procedures, such as the removal (!) of magazine doors. It is such subtleties that are often missed in debates and indeed in many publications on the topic. Take care!

As I clearly wrote earlier, I was referring to the performance of the 13.5" gun with the green boy shell introduced in 1917/18. The 13.5" was a very powerful gun let down by poor APC shells. But even with these relatively poor shells it did a lot of damage earlier in the war. However, this seems to be a personal thingy for you and you prefer not to read my posts too carefully. That is entirely your choice.

Shell weight, filler weight and remaining velocity at long range.

Again, I have to disagree. The 13.5"-45 was an excellent gun: reliable, accurate, with a long barrel life and 50% more hitting power than a 12". It was let down by a flawed APC shell, which had a soft cap and too brittle a body. As a gun though, it was quite superior to the German 12"-50 when they were equipped with the green body shells in 1918. Even at Jutland it performed better than legend has it. It would knock out German barbettes and turrets, and did significant damage even when it did not fully penetrate. So even at Jutland I would not think your 'at least at good' applies.

Not exactly. As Baden and Bayern were designed in 1912 and laid down in 1913, the shift to a larger caliber gun had already been made pre-war. It is most likely caused by two factors: - the general increase in gun caliber in all major navies - improved fire control leading to longer expected ranges Up to 10 km or so, a high velocity 28 or 30.5 cm gun was quite competitive in terms of armour penetration. At ranges over 10 km, larger shells retain more of their velocity than lighter shells. Thus the increase in effective range made an increase in gun caliber imperative. In addition, a larger shell has more destructive power due to its larger bursting charge. The good performance of the RN 15" gun at Jutland (except for penetration because of the soft cap and brittle body) merely confirmed the trend.

Can we upvote this thread for ongoing comical value

You kill the most DDs by being where they are, which is often around the caps. Running after them does not make much sense. But I see your point.