Admiral_H_Nelson

Spot on, von_chom! Quote from the Russian dd's thread "The Gnevny is similar but at the same time significantly inferior to premium Gremyaschy in many aspects. Gremyaschy has better: HE damage (1600 vs 1900) Fire chance (7% vs 9%) Camouflage fire penalty (5.9km vs 3.9km), which allows it to invisifire without Advanced Firing Training, unlike Gnevny. Torpedo range (4km vs 8km), which allows Gremy to invisitorp, unlike Gnevny. Base surface camo (7km 6.8km) Rudder shift time (4.4 vs 2.7) Turn radius (610 vs 510) Gnevny only has better speed (38 vs 37) more health (+800) and faster torpedoes (65kn vs 55kn)" From <http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/42713-gunboat-us-or-ru-line/>

I'm with you. Kirov appears to be a "Marmite" ship. I really got on well with Svetlana, 9 games and 50k average damage took me to Kirov. I equipped it fully before playing it (all the upgrades fitted), but have been underwhelmed. I'm 100% convinced that it isn't the ships's fault, though. I don't really "get" big gun cruisers. I've tried many of them on live/public test (Furutaka, Aoba, Myoko, Pensacola, Yorck, Hipper) and failed miserably in all of them. I'm not entirely sure what the main problem(s) are - but I suspect that it is simply that my shooting is too poor for ships with a low rate of fire. I have the same problems with battleships.

@LittleWhiteMouse Thank you for the guide. I've seen your stuff on the NA server and have been very impressed. Thanks for bringing your insights to a wider audience.

Expert marksman works with the 130mm guns though, doesn't it?. I'm sure that you are right that the 152mm guns hurt the enemy more, but I don't think that my nerves could stand the long wait waiting for the guns to turn on target.! Of all the 0.5.3 nerfs to light cruisers, the one to expert marksman has hurt me the most. Anyway, the good news is that I've now finished with the Bogatyr grind. The bad news (according to what I've been reading in these forums) is that I start on the Sveitlana next.

Check out this video "World of Warships - Tech Tree Overview - Russian Cruisers" by iChaseGaming The Shchors gets an extra turret over the Buyonny, but in other respects it suffers:-- much weaker armour-- turning radius of 900 meters and poor rudder shift time, worse than battlships!-- Poor surface detectibility of 13.3 km iChaseGaming calls it "The massive stinker on the Russian line" Not saying iChase is right, not saying that he is wrong either. Just offering an alternative opinion.

I agree completely. I'd like to add something else. As a mediocre/average player I find that Tier 4/5 is the "sweet spot" for scoring and helping my team. I have been collecting my own performance data. For example, how often I finish in positions 1-6 of the scoring table for my team(i.e the top half). -- At tier 6/7 I do this approximately 33% of the time.-- At tier 4/5 I do this approximately 55% of the time. So at tiers 4 & 5 I am neither a "seal clubber" nor a very weak member of the team that has to be carried by everyone else. I feel comfortable with that.

Dev Diaries: Soviet Cruisers http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/videos/dev-diaries-soviets/ Developers reveal the meticulous attention to detail in creating the new line of Soviet cruisers. (Even when creating the imaginary ones) Yet Admiral Hipper is still not fixed. Nürnberg still sits too high out of the water (with the propellers breaching the surface for F's sake!) ALL NATIONS ARE EQUAL -- BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

Regarding my current situation, my sig says it all really ..... I used to regularly play light cruisers: Kuma, Phoenix, Murmansk, Cleveland, Königsberg, Nürnberg. I tried some other ship types but didn't like them (133 games in BBs, 193 games in DDs). After the changes in 0.5.3 most of the fun has gone out of the game for me. I seemed to be making progress in the game, but now I feel knocked backwards a long way. But then, that was the intent, because Wargaming felt that these changes were absolutely necessary to get the game back into balance. Even accepting that argument 100%, the fact is that the nerfs hurt and affect how I see the rewards of playing the game. TBH I can think of lots of more enjoyable activities than playing WoWs right now. My last game was over two weeks ago and I haven't missed it. I'm hoping that playing Soviet cruisers will get my interest back. P.S. To be clear - The game is OK. The problem is that I don't seem to fit in to the game.

Thanks to everyone who responded to my query in post #40. @Todger_Fairmile "Or you could buy it now (if you don't already have it), and play it while still elite. BTW, there is no upgrade only stock. " -- Good suggestion. I may do that. @Vogel "You need to buy the T1, but that ship cost zero credits. So just play it with a stock captain for one game, and you'll have enough XP to reach the T2 CA." -- Thanks. I had forgotten that Orlan was free. One game? You have obviously never seen me play @Tyrendian89, @gr0pah -- thanks for the nice, logical points you made. It clarifies things for me. I also found this in another thread "Some interesting info from RU". From post #1410: " We won't be given a free slot with the release of Ru/Soviet cruisers as one free slot is given for each nation, not for each line. " So, in summary, what I need to do is: 1) Obtain a port slot (either buy a new one or sacrifice an existing ship to free up a slot) 2) Obtain "Orlan" 3) Play "Orlan" until I have enough XP to research tier 2 "Novik" 4) Sell "Orlan" to free up a port slot 5) Buy "Novik" 6) Repeat steps 3,4 and 5 to work my way through the Soviet cruisers

A question for the brainy people on the forum (from one of the thickos): Will I have to buy the Orlan again, so that I can grind my way to the tier 2 Soviet Cruiser "Novik"? (Or will Orlan be provided free - as it was when the Soviet DD line was introduced)

Patch 0.5.3 was supposed to included changes to the MM to stop this happening. In the patch notes for 0.5.3 Wargaming stated: Distribution of players into teams was slightly improved. Now, after two teams have been formed, the matchmaker will try to distribute players so that teams consist of players with approximately equal ships. For example, if there are two Cleveland cruisers on one team and two Aoba cruisers on another team, the ships will now be distributed evenly if it is technically possible, in order to have one Cleveland cruiser and one Aoba cruiser on each team. See: http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/updates/update-053-release/ and look in the "Improved Matchmaker" section If you see any matchmaking which does not comply with the above promises then simply raise a ticket, and a include a link to the patch notes.

+1. Perfectly put. In particular, this point cannot be made firmly enough. "We owe you a lot because nobody else does this and also because WG staff don't communicate with us about game development." Why is it that EU people find out useful and important information only because we are lucky to have someone with the skills to translate items from the Russian forum? Why can't Wargaming do this translation and publish it on the EU forum? Wargaming's Head Office communications with their paying public in the EU are appalling. The EU staff keep us up to date as much as they can but lets face it they themselves are in the dark (and I don't think that any of them speak Russian)

Looking at the data in a slightly different manner, if we add the data for some ships which were affected by the 0.5.3 nerf to Expert marksman, we see this: 180 degree turn time time with EM time with EM, pre 0.5.3 speed gain (%) gain pre 0.5.3 (%) Kuma 21.2 19.6 16.4 7.6 22.7 Phoenix 18.0 16.8 14.4 6.5 20.0 Omaha 24.0 22.0 18.0 8.5 25.0 Königsberg 30.0 26.9 21.2 10.4 29.4 Nürnberg 23.7 21.7 17.8 8.4 24.8 Cleveland 32.7 29.0 22.5 11.3 31.3 Mogami 155 51.4 42.9 30.0 16.7 41.7 Mogami 203 30.0 26.9 26.9 10.4 10.4 This might to help explain why I haven't felt like playing the game for two weeks now. These were precisely the ships that I used to enjoy playing.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It's always pleasant to receive encouragement! On reflection, I will take your advice about the Mahan. I won't give up on it. My performances at tier 7 have been very poor (and checking my stats on "Warships Today" has confirmed this). Once I feel that I can compete at Tier 7, rather than be a burden on my team, I will give the Mahan a go! OTOH I think that I am a lost cause with battleships. I'm not terrible in them. I've played 133 battles in 6 different battleships. I obtain 99% of the damage that the average player gains, with a 50.4% win rate. However, I just don't enjoy the game play. Even when I have been top scorer on my team in a battleship, I just feel.....meh. (However unbelievable that sounds, I'm afraid that it IS the truth.) TBH the only ships that I feel satisfaction in playing are light cruisers and gunboats. But that is just my preference - we are all different thank goodness! Happy sailing and good luck in whatever ship you take into battle!

I applaud this offer being made available for all those players who want a reasonably priced (and reasonably performing) USN premium ship in which they can train their captains. Well done Wargaming for offering an unbundled version. I won't need it personally, since I can't see myself progressing up the USN line any further. I've grinded Cleveland, and researched Pensacola - though I won't be buying it. As for the other lines, I have Langley (CV), New York (BB), and Mahan (DD) in my port. Here is the shocker - I HAVE NEVER PLAYED ANY OF THEM. With 38 ships in port, there is always some other ship that seems more attractive to play.

According to the release notes, the situation that you encountered was EXACTLY the one that Wargaming said that they were going to prevent. Not working as designed. Yet another bug. "Distribution of players into teams was slightly improved. Now, after two teams have been formed, the matchmaker will try to distribute players so that teams consist of players with approximately equal ships. For example, if there are two Cleveland cruisers on one team and two Aoba cruisers on another team, the ships will now be distributed evenly if it is technically possible, in order to have one Cleveland cruiser and one Aoba cruiser on each team." http://worldofwarships.eu/en/content/update-notes-main/ Just how bad does a patch have to get before they will back the wretched thing out?

Paper for the Destroyers under the sky,Rock for the Battleships in their halls of stone,Scissors for the Cruisers doomed to die,Planes for the Carrier sailing all alone.In the World of Warships where the airplanes fly.One class to rule them all, One class to find them,One class to bring them all, and on the high seas sink them,In the World of Warships where the airplanes fly. (With apologies to Tolkein)

These are interesting ships - particularly the Tromp and De Ruyter (I love light cruisers). BTW, in my vocabulary "interesting" is the highest praise that I can give! The next problem is how to fit them in. I'm not sure that having loads of premium ships is a good idea, but that leaves two options: a) A "pan European" tree, like the Pan Asia idea b) Dedicated ship trees just for the Netherlands Navy. This might need a lot of paper ships. Alternatively maybe there could be some sort of part tree? Dunno. Wiser heads than mine are needed for this. But I would like to get at least some of these ships into the game! In my ideal world ALL the interesting ships from ALL nations would get into the game. ( I would even include a few token Russian ships )

Respect to your father. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ajax_%2822%29

I'm OK with the concept of exclusivity. I am uncomfortable with the combination of "Exclusive" and "OP". (or even "Exclusive" and "Superior")

I think that this is a brilliant idea! Plus, the better MM also includes the fact that fewer Tier 8 ships will need to be dragged in as "fillers" (which understandably really annoys some players, as per a previous post)

I read this as a bug. It directly conflicts with what is in the 0.5.3 patch notes. "Distribution of players into teams was slightly improved. Now, after two teams have been formed, the matchmaker will try to distribute players so that teams consist of players with approximately equal ships. For example, if there are two Cleveland cruisers on one team and two Aoba cruisers on another team, the ships will now be distributed evenly if it is technically possible, in order to have one Cleveland cruiser and one Aoba cruiser on each team." http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/cbt/update-053-release/ The Fusos and Colorados shouldn't all be on one team.

@CuddlyPanda. Very good post. It gives some interesting information and is well-written. A nice balanced account of your experiences. You are obviously a good Mogami player, but modest about it. Please post more on the forum!

So that's why Wargaming are pushing Team Battles so much. Another little push towards premium accounts. (DECLARATION OF INTEREST: I personally run a premium account) "On the other hand, we've always said that a premium account at tier 7-8 ensures a good margin." "With the margin earned with a premium account, players can buy a full set of consumables and still end up with a net income, or not lose or gain anything." I wish that I could turn off all the Team Battle reminders, TBH. All those "Team Battles Start in n minutes", "Team Battles have now started", "Team Battles will end in n minutes", "Team Battles are paused so that everyone can go to the WC" (I might have made the last one up).

Sorry to belabour my earlier point, but here is another great example of a DD captain using their skills in a way which is not deemed acceptable for cruiser captains. From post #9 in thread: "Once again, Acheron proves he is a grand master of this game" http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/45976-once-again-acheron-proves-he-is-a-grand-master-of-this-game/ "141k DMG with Kamikaze R and With Shimakaze captain - 5.4 km spotting range and 5.6 km torps range." I'll repeat what I said before: "I fully support this DD player, BTW. He should be allowed to use his skills since he has grinded very hard to get them." But why the double standards, Wargaming?