Admiral_H_Nelson

I've been noticing your posts for a while now (a good sign), and maybe you are right - in terms of what is good for the game. I like light cruisers that have the rate of fire to overcome the frustrations of RNG and the ability to switch between HE and AP as the situation demands.Without IFHE they seem anemic. (This is not the same as DD gunboats and their "Death of a thousand Cuts" style which sends me to sleep) Speaking personally, I'm hanging on to the game by a thread and a big nerf to IFHE might be enough to send me over the edge and just walk away. Sorry to sound so dramatic.

But I'm not taking a ship into combat against other ships in a CV, am I? I'm flying planes. In fact one of the big gripes about the new CVs is the lack of ship control. Jeez, @Asakka - How thick can you be with only one head?

Don't give a flying f*** (excuse the pun). If I want to fly planes around I'll try WoWP. I'm looking forward to the next line of SHIPS. (But not of course the next line of Russian ones. Getting sick of the massaging of the ego of the Russian playerbase when there is NOT ONE LINE OF ITALIAN SHIPS YET).

Just trying to add another perspective here. Not having a go at anyone. Maybe in the "Real" world of Random battles PEF is an effective ship. I don't know. All I can say is that in the "Mickey Mouse" world of PvE (that us lesser players have to play) the PEF was a horrid ship because it lacks the punch necessary to inflict quick damage. As I've said many times, my favourite fleet is the German one, and even I can't stand it. Wasted real money on a port queen

Japanese cruiser Azuma, tier IX QUOTE The "Hydroacoustic Search" consumable returned to the ship, and its parameters correspond to the standard for cruisers at tier IX. Its presence will allow the ship to feel safer in close combat, although the characteristics of the cruiser do not imply effective participation in the battle at short distances due to the peculiarities of the armor and a long reload of the Main Battery. END-QUOTE While any buff is welcomed, surely adding Hydro to a ship designed for longer-range combat is by Wargaming's own admission highly situational compared to a Main Battery Nerf which impacts every game.

@MrConway (Sorry for using the bat signal. I realise that it should be used only when you feel that you really have to use it) I was under the impression that bot carriers would be added to co-op in 0.8.1 Can you confirm that PvE has been given a stay of execution, and that bot carriers will not be added? Or is this an omission from the patch notes? Ta!

How was it a waste? You enjoyed playing the best game that has ever been, and which has no flaws or problems whatsoever (and is NOT still stuck in Beta Test) On topic....did not win anything.....I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!

Any Friends that I invited to the game in its current state would soon become "ex-friends". Sorry to be so blunt. I could have been even more severe - Think yourself lucky that I have managed to get into a state of "WoWS Rehab."

"napkin scribblings" ....magnificent description!

What - this is gentle humour, surely? I have not seen you so often in the forums in recent months, but I remember you as being someone who could make Pensacola work at tier 7 when most forumites were saying that it was an awful ship. Seriously mate - the little that you don't know about USN CA play is not worth knowing! Wichita must be a weak ship in the current meta, or (more likely) you have had extreme bad luck with her.

Incidentally, what is the recommended build for Atlanta in the new meta? I used to follow the one suggested by Flamu: 1-Priority Target; 1-Preventative maintenance ; 2-Adrenaline Rush; 3-Demo Expert; 4-Concealment; 4-IFHE; 4-AFT; Now everyone seems to recommend "Manual AA" instead of "AFT," which is a shame because "AFT "helped with the range of the Main Battery (and you can hit big BBs even with the Atlanta's shell arcs)

How Wargaming see the CV Rework How the players see the CV rework Meanwhile, the guy who devised the Airplane aiming system...

Well yes - but then we have a scheduling problem. WG can either go ahead with the schedule and release a new CV line before the current ones are even properly balance (and look stupid) or delay the schedule - which has a knock on effect on the most eagerly waited new line ever: The Russian Battleships!

That's what I thought - an excellent announcement! Then i got to worrying....

Actually the Wargaming precision nerfing tool has been upgraded to this:

Well you might be in favour of it, but I'll be buggered if I play a game like that! Very true. I hasten to add an important point though. By playing the game less (and on my terms) I'm actually enjoying it again, and thus likely to stick around. When I was playing more games I just got more and more frustrated and seriously thought about quitting. These WG Grindfest events are counter-productive to me.

Despite Zoup's boasting about his qualifications he misses the point. Wargaming is more concerned with battles played rather than raw numbers of players. Imagine you have a shop that monitors the number of people that come into it. What's more important - the number of people coming into the shop or the amount that they actually spend. A Personal example (and i am sure that I speak for others). This time last year I would log on to the game and play 10-15 battles in a session. Now I log on and play 2-5 battles. Either way I count as one player. So my inluence on the "Number of players" statistic is the same, but I contribute less to the "Number of battles" statistic.

That sounds to me like a very good yardstick to use to judge whether the CV rework could be considered a success. For completeness - and out of respect for your opinion - what would be considered a big failure in your view? A significant reduction in total number of battles per week maybe (say 10% plus?)

Good Post. Just to elaborate on the above point ..... Some of us have closed our wallets simply because of the natural progression through the game as a long -term player. Not because we are angry with Wargaming. I have spent a LOT of money on this game (an embarrassing amount), but have now come to a point where I feel it is not necessary. I'm not grinding any of the lines. I have all the tier X ships that I really want (including three that I have not played yet), and play a very small subset of the ships that I own - maybe 20 out of 184. I don't need any more ships, flags, camo, doubloons - so I stopped buying stuff. (I'm not even bothered about getting "Free" stuff, so I have stopped worrying about missions.)

True. Got the Texas (its....meh!) I was excited about VU being added to the game but dismayed by reports of what WG are doing to it to force it into Tier 5. We also have the "Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya" (spelling? - don't care anyway). You know....the one with the camouflage that glorifies a murdering totalitarian regime, but it's Ok because its Rashian Comrade.

TL;DR Could someone tell me how much "official" aircraft speeds are scaled up in game, please. SHIP SPEED SCALING As I am sure we all know by now, ships in-game travel far faster than their stated speed. For example in a recent game in my Anshan, I covered 31.62km at an average speed of 96.3 knots. The official unmodified speed of Anshan is 38 knots. I've checked the forums, Wiki and Reddit and most answers seem to think that the official speed is scaled up by a factor of 5 or 6. AA CALCULATIONS I'm trying to do some calculations of the theoretical damage done by flak in each aura (Short-, medium-, and long-range). I want to work out how much time an aircraft will spend in each aura. I'm aware that there are factors which modifiy this, but for now I simply want to apply the stated speed of an aircraft - which I can get from the WIKI or the game - to the actual speed in-game.

Many thanks for the replies everyone! Much appreciated. I'll now go away and crunch some numbers in a spreadsheet, when I have some free time.

Absolutely! And i would not be the least bit surprised if GC at tier 6 is almost as OP as GC at tier 5 - the best performer. I don't even mind (In general) the concept of uptiering as a method of nerfing an OP premium! BUT I DON'T WANT TO PLAY TIER 6! Or, on topic, a premium that is inferior but samey to it's silver counterpart.

Who knows? maybe the same team that is working on Giulio Cesare are also looking at HMS Exeter, and your wish will be granted!

In my case it is personal demons with the ship. I have ten tier 6 Battleships, and usually ,as i stated in a previous thread) my German fleet is my pride-and-joy. But PEF is a horror story for me. It ranks dead last in terms of performance of all the ten ships. It struggles mightily to do damage. I checked Wargaming's official stats. For every 100HP of damage dished out by the Fuso (best ship), the PEF does only 56!! Not that the Fuso is that marvelous - I hate tier 6 in general. (Don't want GC to be moved there)