dasCKD

I like cats as well, but I'm allergic so I can't play with cats. My eyes go red, I tear up, and my nose gets blocked.

F*cking amazing.

It'll make bombing destroyers a lot harder for one.

The system is either automated or player controlled. Automated, it just won't ever be accepted into the game right now. Players have put a lot of time and effort into mastering manual drops. If it is player controlled, it also won't work as any player who has complete control over their plane drop patterns would just stack torpedoes when attacking large ships, making evading even the majority of torpedoes nigh impossible even bow on. Think British cruiser drop patterns but for carriers. This is also not taking into account the compressed time frame in game. In an actual naval battle, even small ships would probably spend more than 30 seconds to get their rudder from neutral to full turn. In game, 30 seconds is the period of a full battleship reload and longer than the rudder shift times of the largest ships in the game. The suggested system does not work.

I think the easiest fix to this would just be to enforce the CV number rules for carriers of tiers 8 and up all the way down to tier 4. 1 carrier per team is enough IMO, especially at tiers 4 and 5 where they just rip apart anything they so much as look at.

How stupid do you think carrier captains are exactly? "OH LOOK! It's a smoke screen vomiting AP/HE shells! On, look at that team list, it's a Minotaur/Des Moines. Every time I move my aircraft closer to the smoke screen, they get fired upon!" ... "Let's go take a closer look!"

I have a Shinonome, I just don't like playing her

If a player in a smoke screen can't see you when their allies are spotting you, then you won't be able to see the enemy when a friendly cruiser, destroyer or aircraft spots the enemy either. You will have to spot everything yourself. Is that a game you really want to play?

That actually sounds pretty bad. Any pictures?

The Zao has a 65-203 mm of armor with a turtleback with 65 mm on her midship citadel's slope. The Hindenburg has 20 - 110 mm of armor on her citadel with 45 mm on her midship citadel's slope. I very much doubt there is anyone who would say that the Zao is tankier than the Hindenburg.

Well, the Hindenburg is one of the tankiest cruisers in the game, and her citadel armor sits beneath that of the Atlanta at certain places. Pure thickness isn't necessarily indicative of ingame performance. That said, I would still have preferred her with 30 mm of bow armor.

The Ognevoi might make an appearance in future clan wars given how fast she is and that her torpedoes would perform better in clan wars in comparison to the Benson's torpedoes (faster and harder to detect). Her defensive AA makes her a very nice ship because she can be used to delay the enemy carrier for long enough for the friendly carrier to show up with fighters. The Grozhevoi though is rather poor quite frankly, even if they didn't nerf her AA. I am very much against ships that are entirely overpowered at one gimmick and mediocre or poor at everything else.

The only complaint I really have about La Grande Baguette (and it is 'La', nouns ending with 'e' are almost always feminine) is her muzzle velocity. I am of the opinion that she should have the muzzle velocity equal to at least that of the Zao or Hindenburg given how slowly she fires. If there should be a cruiser able to readily penetrate the citadels of battleships at 10 kilometers it should NOT be the one with an 11 second reload unmodded.

Ah yes, the destroyer's infamous omnidirectional torpedo spreads that moves out and melts through battleships even through islands without any need to even aim and torpedoes that needs to travel time to hit their target. I remember that destroyer death field now! They should nerf that one of these days...

Most people are criminally underinformed as to how carrier operates, so I'll put it in terms that anyone can understand. The Grozhevoi was to carriers what the Black is to destroyers. A ship that you can't possibly see coming before you enter their lethal zone, who can easily engage you from complete invisibility and with complete impunity, and who can wipe away any chance you have of a fair fight. Now admittedly a carrier won't be wiped from the game by losing one strike wing, but it's still crippling and infuriating. Imagine a stealth firing ship that could hit you for around 30% of your health in 10-20 seconds and you would be able to imagine what the carrier players feel when confronting the Grozhevoi.

I very much did understand your point then. If I knew where the enemy CV is, then I'll know where I can find the CV with the weaker self defense AA and likely the weaker player. If the CV is divisioned, the problem is exacerbated.

That would be very easily abused by any player who knows even basic game mechanics. The deployment pattern is made far easier if you know where the enemy CV is. I think it's far better if all CVs have a reserved spawn spot somewhere in the center back of the team's spawn, therefore they can choose their deployment after the match begins instead of being forced to adopt a flank by necessity.

Well no. They should just buff her other characteristics to make her a stronger performer. A smaller turning circle or a slightly improved RoF (compared to her RUssian contemporaries) would probably go a long way to aide her. Besides, comparing her to the Gearing isn't exactly fair considering that the Gearing is basically the paragon of tier 10 destroyers. She still rather sucks, but then so does the Shima and the Z-52 and they're probably not getting a fix anytime soon. But I am quite bad at playing destroyers, so take my opinion for what it's worth.

It'll be fine if they made incomplete carrier lines, like the Japanese line used to be. As long as the CV lines of a nation starts at 5 and reaches 8, it'll still be grind worthy if only for competitive and nothing else.

She's a very formidable ship with probably one of the most aggressive torpedo angles in the game, surpassing even the British and the Russians. Her AP shells causes horrific levels of damage to the broadside of cruisers like the Myoko, Mogami, New Orlenes, and Chappayev and the shell arcs of a Zao with lightning fast (for a heavy cruiser) turret mechanization. She also has that trollish German cruiser armor: overpens for days.

He probably overmatched your bow. Furthermore, German battleships have very strong armor even at lower tiers. If you ship guns are consistently under performing against those battleships, then aim for the upper superstructure.

Pretty much. I have an intense dislike for the green camouflage that the IJN ships had, and would much prefer that my ship looks stylish as opposed to reasonable. It's not like the camouflage pattern affects ship performance. I wish my Zao's camouflage was bright red and patterned like a fire.

Looking at her, I'd say it depends on her turret mechanization, shell performance, and handling. If she has shell performance in line with those expected from IJN heavy cruisers, a nice tight turning circle, and shells with a nice punch and good Krupp then I'd think she'd be an attractive ship to have in port at least.

She looks nice and symmetrical this way. [edited]

I'm back with a topic that no one should care about and writing about things that community managers should be doing in my place! Yay! -throws confetti- A quick retrospective on the British cruisers: So here we are, at the sixth cruiser line with the French. We have the Japanese with solid gun performance all round, powerful but difficult to use torpedoes, and very potent HE. We have the Americans, who specialized in AA before the endless patches turned the battleships that used to depend on them for defense into a far more potent source of AA than the cruisers as well as the Russians and the British in the higher tiers usurping their role there. We have the Germans, with their Frankenstein line with long ranges and good gun handling for very dangerous AP but substandard HE. We have the Russians, and their long range HE spamming and rapid firing guns at the cost of being easier to penetrate than the easiest [segment omitted] down at the ports. Then we have the British with their odd but powerful guns and smoke screens. Two HE lines. Two AP lines. One AA line. And now the French. The concept behind the cruisers perhaps works best if they are thought as as simply a subset of ships that are specialized but not in any mutual way as with the battleships or destroyers. Whilst WG might go the way of giving the French cruisers a flavor, something that is far more important in my opinion is the creation of roles for them. I think that the game works best if it works like natural selection in the wider world. If a certain species grows too large in number, then they will either die off or a predator species will grow in number as they feast on the growing prey numbers. I think, for the lack of a better description, that the new ships should be there as a tool to fight against an enemy that a large number of current ships need to face. The role of ships can be thought of as the following, to a very simple degree. Anti - destroyer Anti - battleship Anti - cruiser Support Objective Reconnaissance All ships can fulfill all roles to a larger or smaller extent, but that is what game balancing would ideally be in my opinion. These tasks are, in my personal opinion, a good way to evaluate how ships can decide the result of a match. Minotaurs are excellent at ripping destroyers to pieces and holding the line from inside of the smoke, but fighting against any other cruiser at standard cruiser engagement ranges will very quickly result in a very dead Minotaur. A Hindenburg is only slightly effective at dealing with non-British cruisers, mediocre against destroyers thanks to her quite poor HE, and only slightly effective at dealing with battleships due to her slow speed and large turning circles. She has insane AP alpha values, a very good hydro coupled with very good turret mechanization on a heavy cruiser, and excellent torpedo arcs and very dangerous close range guns however. This in, in my eyes, a balancing factor in a way. One ship is extremely good at a few things, but terrible at others. The other ship is in no way remarkable, but neither does she suffer in any specific area. Certain ships are simply better performers than their counterparts (e.g. Hindenburg VS Zao) but all ships are best at one of the five roles whilst suffering in others. The Zao for a start is decent at the first, excellent at the second, and good at the third but lacks any ability to fulfill objective and reconnaissance in any major way as front line Zaos are usually dead Zaos. So we come to the gimmick that goes to the French ships. The French cruisers, from what I've seen of them, are quite unremarkable. They appear to resemble either Clevelands in the case of their light cruisers or Hippers in the case of their heavy cruisers. Their speed is slow, peers with the British and Germans and certainly not anywhere near the Japanese or the Russians. Their armor is described as good for a cruiser though the Gloire's 120 mm side and 105 mm belt armor is rather significant for a light cruiser. No significant references were made to their AA capabilities. They're rather short for cruisers of their era, though not notably so. The role of light cruisers So, what should be the French light cruiser's "thing"? It took us a long time to get here didn't it? My ideas are generated rather simply. The French cruiser's thing will almost definitely have to be something to do with their ammunition. I do have one idea about a consumable, but that will be right at the bottom of the list. I will also not be stealing the British's gimmick as tempting as it is to transfer those traits to a ship line with serviceable armor. Incendiary HE Anti-battleship Suppressed Firing Penalty Anti-battleship No Citadel Anti-destroyer, Objective Speed Boost Objective Armor Objective, support Rapid Autoloading Anti-cruiser, anti-destroyer Right, I'm done. I shall eagerly await your indignant protests to my ideas below. Best regards.