dasCKD

Doesn't change the facts of the matter. That's not what the word means. Rockets used for war are missiles, but so are bullets. No, I will not be giving myself a rest. The excuses made for the improper use of language is what led both "retard" and "moron" to fall from medical use. Colloquial use might be useful during conversation, but trying to make a word stop meaning something just because it's colloquially inconvenient is pointless. What a dumb question. I would not for the same reason that if someone told me that someone was aiming a gun at me, I would dodge instead of stopping to inquire about the model. If it's truly a missile that is aimed at my house instead of me personally, then I can already infer that the weapon could do considerable damage. It doesn't matter to me at that point whether the missile in question is the shell of a tactical artillery piece or a powered warhead. Your example fails. What an inane response.

I am looking forwards to the French cruisers. The British battleships, not so much. We have far too many battleships in the game already.

I do have a question. Why does War Gaming insist on trying to force mechanics that are universally reviled by the player based and opposed by the entire community? Do the devs genuinely think that this is a good thing to include in the game? Do they want to revamp the game in some major way and refuse to disclose their intention to us? Or do they just genuinely not care what we think?

By the way, how do you "reduce" manual bombing runs?

I would have no issue with the IJN dds if they had their turning circles bumped down by 200 meters or so and if they had their old gun alpha back. Would ha rdly make them overpowered, considering that even with that the USN DDs are superior to them in most respects.

I think that free XP should be restricted for ships of tier 8 and up, but removing manual drop mechanics for carriers is like removing manual artillery arming just because skilled marksmen can do more damage with their ship artillery. Edit: by that, I mean that ships from tier 8 and up should have their free XP limit for use in some method, though the nature of this method is not something I'm sure of.

REMOVE RDF That is all.

No problem I made it to be shared after all.

XP from damaging enemy ships is calculated by how much damage I cause to enemy ships. Whether I burn down a Montana over 3 minutes or detonated a Shimakaze in about 5 seconds is an irrelevance. I also have not brought up your stats and your performance, so I'd rather it if you didn't bring up mine. Jealousy is an ugly thing after all. Stats are supplementary at best when arguing game mechanics. There is also no need to abuse ammunition, there is simply making use of mechanics. No matter how the mechanics change, players will find the optimum way to perform the best way they could using the existing mechanics. War Gaming can strongarm their players into their vision if they want, but they do so at their detriment. Battleships are meant to kill cruisers. That is the role War Gaming has envisioned for them. Why don't they kill the cruisers then? If I, in a cruiser, am expected to escort battleships and kill destroyers then why don't the battleships kill the cruisers themselves? It's their role after all. I also don't go anywhere near Ireland. I'm not being racist, I just don't trust Leprechauns with their ginger beards and their gold. Where do they get that gold from anyways? I bet they stole it from us hardworking humans. We should have all the Leprechauns deported. Back on topic, the only cruiser that is really effective at stealth firing is the Zao. The Des Moines is comically ineffective at stealth firing, and the Minotaur is far more effective up close. I also don't just stealth fire. I draw a lot of fire as any battleship and their pet dolphin will turn their guns on a Zao almost as quickly as they would turn it on a Minotaur. I exploit armor mechanics and my quick shifting rudder to deny them damage and keep setting them on fire again and again. I do it because it's effective. I'm not effective at hunting destroyers, certainly not in the same way a Des Moines and a Minotaur is, and so I stay at a distance and wreak havoc on the enemy lines. I'm not supposed to babysit my battleships, I'm supposed to be winning the game for my team. If it means throwing my ship into enemy guns to send 4 waves of F3s at enemy ships, then that's what I'll do. If it means sitting at 16+ kilometers and raining fire, that's what I'd do as well. I can adapt, you see, to the circumstances. I don't provide air support if I don't deem it necessary. A Shimakaze or a Gearing going for a cap needs my air support against a Hakuryu far more than a Montana on the 1 line. What War Gaming wants me to do is not important. I do what I do because it works for me and my teams eventually thank me for it. If they knew better than me, then following their instructions would be the way to win more battles and earn more XP. As it isn't, then it seems that the premise that they know how to play their game better than I do is quite faulty. If they did, then I would be performing awfully. Yet I'm not. Also enough with the personal attacks, you really don't want this comparison to come down to personal credibility. I have, at no point in this entire thread, posted anything against the existence of the fire prevention skill. You simply seem to see everyone who disagrees with you as a monolithic front of what you seem to perceive as evil villainous and unified front that you are waging some heroic crusade against. It would be comedic if it wasn't so sad.

Their intention for the game is an irrelevance if their vision for the games aren't the optimum method for the players to achieve their goals in the game. The intention for the game is for carriers to hunt large ships, yet the most successful carrier players in the game almost exclusively hunt destroyers or use their planes as scouts in clan wars. Standing by the design documents when other players have found far better ways to use the existing mechanic is hard headed and pointless. In a multiplayer competitive game, the goal of the game is to win. You also won't convince anyone if you just ignore their arguments whilst making vague allusions and appeal to some higher standard of knowledge. That's simply false. Destroyers are strong at holding lines. Sometimes that means using aggressive actions to eliminate enemy ships. Sometimes that means deploying smoke and shooting at anyone who comes close. Different games unfolds differently and forcing a ship to perform according to a one paragraph description by War Gaming even when the team simply does not need that role fulfilled is foolhardy at best. Adaptability and uncertainly mandates that sometimes a ship needs to perform outside of their combat roles. A cruiser might need to go scout, a battleship might need to go cap, and a destroyer might need to engage in a gunfight with larger ships. Trying to follow WG's instruction to the letter is ultimately useless when sometimes knowing when to use those unconventional plays can win games.

Freedom and liberty, as in every single ship and their pet dolphin is rearing to liberate your ship from itself. A thousand times into a thousand tiny pieces.

T_T That's mean, what about players like me with a -20% recent win rate?

They would also equally miss battleships as they would destroyers. In a realistic game, a carrier will have about as much difficulty detecting a battleship as they would a destroyer all other things equal.

Carriers would also spot ships basically the moment they appear on the horizon. There's none of this 2km to ship before you detect her nonsense, even a small destroyer will be visible once a spotter plane enters the general area of said ship.

The point of that sentence wan't to make a good argument, it was to show how silly yours was. How convenient for you. If you did, then you might have had to respond to my post in a proper way. Must you antagonize me? Out of any player here, I am probably the one most likely to make concessions to you.

Two out of five ships in terms of the best win rate are also battleships. In fact, two thirds of the top three win rate ships are battleships. In a game with 4 classes, 66% of the best win rate ships in the entire game are representative of just one ship class! Lies, damn lies, and statistics. That's a non-argument. The win rates of battleships are not dependent on how HE performs as a mechanic, anymore than the win rates of a carrier has any statement on the power of AA at a certain tier or the win rates of a destroyer has any statement on radar as a mechanic. It simply does not follow. You can't argue against the performance of HE spamming as a mechanic by citing battleship win rates. It does not follow. It does not work. It makes no sense. It's not an argument I've seen Flints in battle. If you think cruisers like Kirovs spam HE... Out of those ships: here's how they're played from what I've seen: HE spammer (from smoke) AP spammer AP spammer Torpedo boat/HE spammer Torpedo boat Torpedo boat Torpedo boat/HE spammer HE spammer (from max range) Torpedo boat HE spammer The premise that HE spamming isn't a good tactic is simply not true. Battleship guns are insanely potent in games and very few cruisers are able to resist fire from those guns. Due to this, cruisers stay as far away as battleships as they can if they have the choice unless the battleship is so under tiered that the battleship simply does not stand a chance i.e. when I fought a Gneisenau with my Roon. The poor thing went down in half a minute. Shouldn't have been broadsiding a German cruiser at that range, but at that tier the guy might only have 500 games under his belt. A part of what makes a good player comes from knowing what ammunition type to use in which situation. Being able to make a choice between ammunition loadouts, especially with the slow loading higher tiered ships, is extremely important. Knowing when and where to fire AP in a cruiser can mean life or death. A Montana recently thought it was wise to ignore a Zao just because I just used my torps, the shock and horror in chat as I evaporated 60k of HP was hilarious. What I'm trying to say is that AP has its place, but refusing to use HE ever is no better than refusing to use AP. I saw a Zao not long ago gun down a Neptune using HE despite the fact that the Neptune was broadside on to her Spent about 5 or 6 salvos of HE on that Neptune. I could have resolved that little skirmish in half of a Zao's salvo. Cruisers won't generally win a fight against a battleship in real life, but that doesn't really matter in the context of the game. The reason navies built cruisers and destroyers were that they were faster and that they were far cheaper to both build and maintain. Their lower power is compensated by the fact that they are far cheaper to run and consequently far more numerous. Shimas cost about as much as Yamatos in the game to run, yet in real life even a destroyer like her would only cost the IJN about one in a hundredth of the Yamato to build and maintain. In order to make the players willing to pay for their ships, the ships have to be competitive with battleships. It's basic logic in multiplayer games. No one wants to play the grunt. If the game was in any way realistic, then everyone would learn to play carriers as they would devastate any battleship they look funny and still have time to tab over to a Youtube video to watch cats. Battleships, more so than any class, would suffer from realism. A stray cruiser shell may start a fire that could burn for hours, causing countless damage to ship mechanics and human lives. A single well placed torpedo would usually mean the end of that battleship. Aerial torpedoes would arm within 50 meters and travels up to 50 knots, causing the same kind of catastrophic damage that a smaller submarine and ship torpedo would. A single dive bomber bomb could cause a leak that sinks battleships a la Fuso. Realism will make everyone suffer, but battleships more than anyone else especially since if destroyers were deployed like they were in naval wars then battleships will be up against a ten destroyer rush, all armed with torpedoes that can send them to the bottom in one hit. Even if the battleship can somehow survive any of this, they would basically be a (very expensive) sitting oil derrick for the next few days, waiting for a tugboat to tow them to port. They were mostly planes. Again, if the game was realistic then it would just be about 2 battleships, 5 cruisers, and 20 destroyers swimming in circles as a carrier (or a fleet of them) kills every last one of them over the course of the next few hours without giving them a chance to fight back. Battleships are also allowed to play in an extremely historically inaccurate way. They mostly engaged at maximum range with their guns, full broadside, with plunging fire before retreating when they run out of ammunition or patience. We hear a lot about close quarters battlers that costed a lot of ships, but they were an anomaly and so they are talked about so much. To a real navy, not losing ships and the precious men aboard is far more important than killing enemy ships. Battleships IRL would be far less agile and would be carrier food. Even the USN with literally the best AA firepower in the entire world at the time still only managed paltry plane kills with their AA artillery. Extreme maneuvers often also tore the keel or broke the rudder, rendering the battleship an easy target for enemy artillery, aircraft, and torpedoes. No, I'm supposed to be supporting our destroyers. The battleships are big ships, they can protect themselves especially with the quite frankly unwarranted improvements to AA firepower that battleships have been given over the patches. Stopping the battleships from taking superficial damage from HE is not nearly as important as taking initiative to push up the flanks to surround the enemy or escort the destroyers to wipe out the enemy destroyer flotilla as to minimize their damage. Battleships are supposed to be protecting the cruisers whilst the cruisers supports them with aggressive tactical maneuvers, not the other way round. Now some cruisers deviate from the norm: the Zao is basically built as an anti-battleship weapon and the Minotaur is simply not capable of aggressive maneuvers like the Hindenburg is and she feels more at home holding flanks like destroyers with rapid firing and rather potent guns, but the simple fact is that battleship guns are so powerful now that most cruiser captains simply don't feel able to stay with their battleships as they will simply be singled out and killed. Realism doesn't enter into any of this. One class is slow and clumsy but tough and can deal out insane levels of damage. Another is swift and fragile whilst still being powerful enough to push flanks if the enemy is distracted and causing damage from there. The balance is there, and you don't need to look hard to find it.

No, Rangers have 6-7 planes per squad. The thing is that as long as you make sure to use your squads well then no issues will arise. If the fighter wants to engage your fighters, then pull them back into friendly AA. If the fighters go after your torpedo bombers, set up an easy strafing run for yourself. It's really not hard to deal with an AS USN CV in an IJN CV, especially as you go up the tiers. You can execute strikes more cleanly and more quickly, so it becomes nigh impossible for the enemy CV to stop your attacks.

Just play the Hiryu and watch an AS Ranger try to stop you. It's really funny. If any changes was to be made, I think that the defensive AA consumable should be extended to tier 7 CVs.

Roon class heavy cruiser She'll 'roo-in' you day.

Tier IV Wyoming, she was the Imperator before the Imperator for me Tier V Kamikaze. Would have said the Minekaze but well... Tier VI Fuso, I'm really glad that the Santa convoy missions returned her to my port Tier VII Tier VIII Amagi, to me there was no question about what was the best tier 8. Others may run around with their Tirpitzes and their Atagos, but they are fools I tell you! .To be fair, the tier 8 I keep in port is the Shokaku because of Clan Wars and Ranked. The Hipper was also quite fun, but her lack of a heal killed the deal for me. Tier IX The Yuugumo is hilarious! A better torpedo boat than the Shima, something that I plan to make a thread about one day. Tier X The one who burns away all the heretics in the name of the Emperor!

I'm no aviation expert, I spend most of my time in online games and writing things no one with half a working brain would want to read. But even so I am pretty sure that even with the bad technology of World War II their war planes would still be able to maintain flight for a little longer than 20 minutes. Just saying.

I really am not sure what you're trying to say. High tier battleships outperform every ship apart from the obvious 2 in terms of doing damage average. The ranking for the high tier ships by damage done goes as such: Haky Midway Currywurst (battleship) Yamato (battleship) Zao Montana (battleship) Moskva So with the exception of the carriers and the Zao, the ships that average the highest damage per game are all battleships. The three tier 10 battleship are uncontested against in terms of doing damage. What is your argument here? Is this to substantiate your claim that HE spamming is overpowred? Because this doesn't prove that/ Currently, ship classes are matched up against each other with near perfect homogeneity, meaning a team with 3 battleships will be facing 3 battleships with identical tier distribution. Baring fail divisions, this is true for pretty much every match. A win rate deviation is therefore indicative of ship performance within a class and not indicative of performance against other classes. A Gearing for example outperforms a Shimakaze in win rate, which indicates that a Gearing is a better ship than the Shima when it comes to winning games. It says nothing about how either ship performs against the other classes. The fact that the Flint has a massive win rate is a result of the ship being superior to the other tier 7 cruisers (though in the case of the Flint, circumstances does skew the win rate in favor of her). It says nothing about her performance against other classes. You seem to be surprised by the fact that very few battleships in the higher tiers holds the position of high win rates when this is perfectly natural. At the higher tiers, the player skills tend to converge and so a single ship is not likely to outperform her peers in overall stats because most players can at least minimize the advantages of certain ships and use their skills to put them ahead. Not to say that a ship like the Imperator isn't overpowered, but that her performance will be far less obscene if those in Wyomings, Kaisers, and Myogis were also experienced players. Add that to the fact that basically all of the ships that holds high win rates are either ships from competitions that requires insane levels of dedication from the players or requires players who are invested in the game enough to actually spend real money in the game, and the massive disparity in win rate here is not surprising. Ignoring the premium ships, the ships that tend to perform the best are cruisers and destroyers. This isn't due to how powerful these specific ships are, but rather due to how weak their competition is. In overall statistics, ship performances converge and ships that outperforms their class counterparts are those with the best win rates. Comparing win rates of battleships against those of cruisers, carriers, or destroyers in inane.

Strangely enough, the Imperator. When I first got her, I was insanely upset that I didn't win a Tirpitz and took her into battle against tier 6 ships who outran me before I was torpedoed to death by an IJN DD of some description. I only played cruisers back then, and found battleships (she was basically my first) to be glacial, unresponsive, and boring. She grew on me for what I think are obvious reasons.

I finally completed mine in a Yuugumo. With F3s, it's relatively easy to guarentee a hit on high tier BBs. Just empty a salvo whilst they're coming bow in to you, then wait for 10-20 seconds before following up with a second salvo. Managed 30k on a single Bismark using that tactic.

That's the entrance to the vault where they keep all of the 'Sekret Dokuments' of the new Soviet DDs.