dasCKD

There's no OP line in general, as ships perform very differently from tanks. At tier 3, the St. Louis is an unstoppable juggernaut that can out battleship actual battleships. At tier 5, the Minekaze is a monster that can take entire flanks apart singlehandedly. At tier 6, the Fuso is a monster. At tier 7, the Gneisenau has extremely good AA, torpedoes to boot, and armor that stops stupid mistakes. At tier 8, the Amagi has her WMD guns that can rip apart even a Yamato with one salvo. At tier 10, the Zao is a monstrosity that can kill a ship without ever being spotted. There's no OP line right now, it just depends on what ship you want in general. USN destroyers are the most consistently solid ships, but for the standouts you need to go through the bad ones. Stay away from the IJN DD line though, WG seems to be doing everything it can to castrate that line.

IJN cruisers are a nice, solid, and easy to use line with consistently powerful guns and a good gun arcs. USN destroyers are extremely solid and easy to use even if they are quite limited by their roles early on. If you want battleships, then the Germans are consistently solid all the way through. The Japanese have extremely formidable ships and very reliable guns in terms of battleships, but they have the inevitable failures along the way.

Which is exactly why the Bogue, with nearly double the plane kill per game as the Zuiho, has a significantly higher win rate than the Zuiho by gaining air supremacy and spotting the enemy ships. Shokakus laugh at AS Lexingtons as they try to futilely stop the air attacks that rip their team apart destroyer by destroyer. It's been a while since I had a Zuiho, but I can't image it'll be that different especially since Bogues are far less capable of dealing damage than the 500kg bombs on the Lexington. They also kill destroyers and battleships instead of spotting them, reducing the numbers of enemy ships that they have to deal with. AS prevents damage from 1 or maybe 2 enemy ships at the very best (something that it WILL fail to do as can be seen by the average win rates between the Bogue and Zuiho) whilst a strike carrier will protect their team from the damage of every single ship that they sink or send running to the back of the map. Inflicting an enemy carrier on your team just so you can futilely attempt to kill their planes is not protecting. You can kill ALL of my planes by the end of the match if you want, but if I'm still able to do damage then the protection was utterly useless.

Because the devs don't play their own game or read the recommendations from their players unless said player is a battleship player with a sub 40% win rate.

I only have one tier 10 ship, but there's a test server for a reason after all! Midway (2/1/2): 18 Midway (1/1/3): 16 Des Moines: 22 Gearing: 23 Hakuryu (2/3/2): 21 Hakuryu (4/2/2): 20 Hakuryu (2/3/3): 23 Yamato: 23 Zao: 27 + 1 = 28 A very solid cruiser in all respects. She more than earns her place as the most popular high tiered cruiser. Shimakaze (type 93 mod. 2): 21 Shimakaze (type F3): 11 - 3 = 8 Less maneuverable than a Fubuki which herself is already carrier and destroyer bait. Even with the mediocre standard of high tier gameplay on the test server she struggles to control any battle in any meaningful way. Hindenburg: 23 G. Kurfürst (406mm): 21 G. Kurfürst (420mm): 20 Moskva: 22 Khabarovsk: 22 Minotaur: 15 (Its highly situational, it;s almost impossible to create positive situations)

Bogue (1/1/0): 16 - 3 The Bogue should just be removed, by default, from every elimination list. As should every USN CV that isn't a Midway, Saipan, or Langley. Texas: 14 Omaha: 8 Nicholas: 13 Zuiho (1/1/2): 5 Zuiho (1/2/1): 21 + 1 Mini Saipan with uptiered planes and special matchmaking. Kongo: 29 Furutaka: 19 Minekaze/Kamikaze/Fujin: 39 Gremy: 25 Murmansk: 22 König: 28 Königsberg: 23

Why must there be this strict adherence to the rock, paper, and scissors model when not just every line but every ship handles differently? A Hiddenburg is effectively an ultimate cruiser hunter and brawler, why do we need to shoehorn ships like the Des Moines and Zao into that role? The rock, paper, scissors model is something that emerges from the nature of the ships and, for the most part, is already fulfilled. Destroyers are significantly more powerful against battleships than cruisers, cruisers are significantly more powerful against destroyers than battleships, battleships are significantly more powerful against cruisers than destroyers. Why should we move the game towards a point where you basically can't even scratch your counter? Why preserve the model at all, if all it brings us is a static game where you just have to hope that the matchmaker gives you none of your counters and as many of your prey as possible? Realistically speaking, a battleship clipped by one or two plane launched torpedoes is either dead or out of commission for the rest of the battle as the crew attempts to stem the water flow before it blows up the boiler. Realistically speaking, fires would do FAR more damage than it currently does. Not only could it burn for hours, it would also kill crewmen and destroy modules that would very quickly degrade a ship's fighting ability. Realism can go hang. That is not indicative of the strength of HE and fires but the weakness of torpedoes from destroyers and the unreasonable AA capabilities of battleships. So fires are fine again then. In real life, you won't get the derpy launches you do in game. You get carriers with torpedoes that go at 52 knots, dropped by planes that flies faster than any plane in the entire game including fighters. The dive bombers are flown by professional pilots who are responsible for personally dropping on targets with bombs that have been known to one shot kill battleships. Yes, I'm sure destroyers did great against those. It's also not easy in game to hit destroyers with fires and bombs. The effectiveness of carriers against destroyers was something that was environmentally forced onto carriers.

How is that meant to work? DDs as AA batteries or as carrier hunters? You do realize how fast carriers are and how good they've gotten at murdering DDs right? Gunboat destroyers can at least gun down a carrier quite quickly up until tier 9 and 10 with the ludicrous deck armor of carriers. Torpedo boats? They'll have every last vector of attack blocked and their ships perpetually spotted if the carrier even thinks that the destroyer is a threat to them. Where does this insane idea of destroyers hunting carriers come from, especially in randoms. It doesn't work! In ranked, it might work because carriers are so preoccupied with trying to screw with the enemy carrier. In randoms, the destroyer basically has to maneuver through a deathgrid of torpedoes and gunfire before they even will catch a glimpse of an enemy carrier at any tier besides the first few.

HE has a significantly lower chance of setting fires if it can't penetrate. This means that this is effectively the case for KM BBs. If fires are such a big deal, play them. The fires are also a nerf to carriers, but I guess that can be assumed to be the agenda of every battleship main ever now. It only buffs torpedo boats. Gun boats will be nerfed by the changes to fires suggested above. Gunboat DDs are also battleship hunters, why should they have to suffer just because torpedo boats have been pushed to obsolescence thanks to WG catering to those who can't use a rudder? Except those which have radar, which benefits massively from typhoons. And destroyers. Their supposed target. Do you know why cruisers don't go after destroyers? It's because they need to get close to be effective against the destroyers and if they do that, then they make themselves easier targets for battleships. Yes, I'm sure a Khabarovsk will have such an easier time killing a Yamato without being able to set fires. Unless the cruiser is one of those German fake cruisers, cruisers CAN'T brawl with battleships. The lack of fires changes nothing except to remove a minor/non-threat from battleships (as shown by the damage charts) and to make the nerf stick hit even harder when it eventually swings down for the battleships.

Kagero mounts the Type 90 mod.1 and Type 93 mod.2. If she had the F3s, then she might actually be competitive and we can't have that can we battleship players?

For me, it's a pain to play in the style where you stay far back and invisible to try to farm damage even in a ship like the Zao. I don't know how people put up with it with the crappy ballistics of ships like the Cleveland or Nurnburg.

Ship name Concealment (surface) Mogami 12.1 Ibuki 12.6 Zao 12.6 Edinburgh 11.7 Neptune 13.1 Minotaur 11.5 U wot m8? And look where that has gotten them in the leaderboards. Citation needed. German cruisers. Hull made of paper. GERMAN CRUISERS. Are we playing the same game? I'm asking seriously because you haven't seen anything Japanese or British or Russian if you think the Germans have hull made of paper. My Hipper can and has broadsided battleships at under 5 kilometers and gotten away with it with nothing but overpens. The Japanese had a historical range of 50 kilometers according to some reports, do we want THAT in the game? I also need citations on torpedo speeds of 74 kmph. That's the speed of the modern NATO torpedo, not any WW2 variant which makes me wonder if you misread something. Also, basically ALL ships of the time, battleships included, utilized smoke at some point or another. Same with radar. Same with sonar. These things need to be excluded for the sake of the game. I suppose we'll ignore which nation has THE most populated line by games played then? Alright. In the testing phase, you could earn the premium version of the German tier 6 cruiser by getting 4 kills in one game of the Japanese ship. That was, if I recall, the earliest incarnation of low tier German cruisers. That ship had awful gun trajectories from back then. I don't know where the idea of flat trajectories for German low tier cruisers come from. Ship name Turning Circle York 650 meters Myoko 780 meters Shchors 900 meters Fiji 590 meters Pensacola 620 meters Ship name Rudder Shift York 6.5 seconds Myoko 7.1 seconds Shchors 8.8 seconds Fiji 8.6 seconds Pensacola 7.0 seconds Ship name Turret rotation York 34.6 seconds Myoko 45 seconds Shchors 25 seconds Fiji 25.7 seconds Pensacola 30 seconds In these tables, German cruisers are held as standard (yellow) with green as superior to standard and red as inferior to standard. Of the aforementioned statistics, the only thing the Germans have any notable disadvantage in is the turret rotation, and their turret rotation is not significantly poor compared to the performance of other heavy cruiser guns. The Schors and Fiji are both light cruisers, so superior turret rotation is expected. The statement above is either false or applies equally if not more so to comparable cruisers of every other nation. The York has average turning circles and the best rudder shift time of any tier 7 (silver) cruiser. I have played a total of 4 tier 8 cruisers routinely. Out of them Hipper has THE BEST armor. Who would shoot at a Hipper with her troll armor over a Mogami, Atago, Edinburg, or Chapayev? Even the New Orleans is insanely easy to kill if not angled bow on. Also, low success rate against her own tier? Give me the broadside of an Edinburgh in my Hipper and I'll show you low success rate.

If they are intent on adding the skill anyways, then they should make it usable for only ships within 4-5 kilometers of the player's ship. That way, it's a high tiered skill for dedicated anti-DD cruiser/destroyer players and not a skill for brainless BB players to avoid torpedo attacks.

She has no defensive fire but good AA and a smoke screen and an extremely good heal. She has the armor of a destroyer and a citadel size that makes the Pensacola's look like a sleek size 0 cruiser. She has no HE and terrible arcs but she can get close to the bow-on and reverse battleships and fire away with impunity. Is she a competitive ship for ranked? Discuss.

Another troll thread or a genuine question? A dilemma indeed! You can't. All BBs past tier 8 have high AA. The only tier where the Germans have unreasonably high AA is at tier 7. Admittedly they could spec for AA, but that's a different subject onto itself. Other BBs and gunboat DDs. Just because KM BBs have idiot proof armor doesn't mean their armor can't be defeated. Also thanks to their terrible dispersion: SN CAs. BBs have been doing that LONG before the KM BBs.

The nerfs to CVs and buffs to AA is what has caused this disparity between performance of players with different skill levels. Further nerfs will only exacerbate the issue.

I fail to see how this fits your narrative. Considering that he apparently wants to statpad, would it not benefit him if he advocated AGAINST turning every carrier into the Saipan? He gets to keep his OP carrier and statpad with her, whilst the rest of the players with tight wallet gets forced to work with subpar carriers. Yet that isn't what he's doing. He's advocating for turning every carrier INTO the Saipan. He wants MORE Saipans, not less. How is this, if he is indeed a premium statpadder with a tight hold on a valuable premium, benefit him? A good business tactic, but that does not fit the p2w image. The Amagi, before the Bismark, was the most powerful battleship in terms of statistics and still holds a very prominent place even with Bismark. She outperforms the Tirpitz. Now what you have proposed a model that indeed predicts WG's behavior, but this is not based upon the p2w model. You don't need to pay real money for the Bismark. You can, if you are willing to put the effort and time into the game, get her without having to pay a single cent. Premium ships, time, and flags makes the climb for her faster but you still don't need to pay for her. WG may make money off a lot of players, but there is no impassable barrier that free to play players can't pass. She is not an example of p2w. WG gets to make money off impatient players, free players can still get their hands on an iconic and powerful ship, and most of the playerbase are generally happy. It's better than what some other gaming companies do. I've seen clips of carrier games from back then. They're nothing like the carriers of today.A Shoukaku could end a Mutsuki with 1 torpedo, the Hakuryu carrying enough torpedo bombers to blacken the sky, the Hiryu carrying as many torpedo bombers as the Taiho, the Independence carrying 12 torpedo bombers, strafing wasn't a thing. That kind of thing is no longer part of the game. You may well have had experience in Alpha and Beta, but that doesn't change the fact the experience from there has no bearing to the situation of today. Not after the IJN strike squad nerf, then the torpedo damage nerf, then the torpedo speed nerf, then the USN torpedo squad nerf, then the long ranged AA buff, then the addition of manual AA into the captain tree, then the KM ships, with AA to rival the USN. The carriers have gotten shafted in patch after patch, despite the fact that it has been so long since they had anything resembling the power they once had. I might not know how many games you had, but you want me to take it by faith that's it's enough not only to completely understand the CV experience but that that experience would carry over to the present meta. You're not going to fool people into thinking that you are right on just authority alone. "Getting things" depends on being able to understand the insinuation of others. I can't trust personal intuition to try to understand something that isn't stated which admittedly is a character flaw of mine. I can't tell if the OP is honest, he may well be just out for personal gain. I can only read what is said and make my decisions on that and what he said is true. The Saipan is fun, far more fun that any other carrier right now, You don't get a squad wiped out and lose half your deck. You don't end up trying to chase a battleships broadside. You can do consistent damage all through the game as long as you stay alive. She's powerful, but easily combated by defensive fire and ships sailing together. She can't wipe or even really significantly hinder skilled battleships, but neither will she be crippled by one bad run. Clever or not, and I'm probably not, I still think the OP is right.

I was not the one who started this inane exercise in intellectual grandstanding. You were the one that alleged that we "didn't get it" and that we were idiots. I also define my terms, because you're using the wrong word. "Logical" despite what you might think, is not a synonym for "agrees with me". You hardly have the moral high ground here. Maybe you prefer this method of argument, you idiot, and so I'll continue. I won't let anyone say I'm not accommodating to everyone else's sensibilities. How exactly do you plan to prove this? Or is this another unsubstantiated assertion I need to type out a diatribe against? Which is why every single tech tree battleship that preceded the Tirpitz were outperformed and completely outclassed by her. I don't think you seem to understand, so I'll type this S L O W L Y so you don't miss anything. Let's say WG's plan was to make a game where you need to pay them with real money in order to perform well. That's their business plan: produce superior premium ships so players will have an easier time fighting against the people who don't pay. Why does the Bismark exist then? Why? Why does the Bismark exist? How does that, in any way, serve their motivation? How does having a silver ship, even if it was introduced after the premium, outperform a premium ship help them achieve their goals? Once they realized that the Bismark was superior, wouldn't it make sense to nerf her so the Tirpitz can stay at the top of the pack? So why does the Bismark exist? Where does a superior silver ship fit within this grand strategic scheme of War Gaming? They have premiums like the Kamikaze that, for all intents and purposes, are inferior to their tech tree counterpart. Why? Where does this fit into their business plan? So the Leningrad is superior to the Kiev. What are you trying to prove? If the game was truly p2w, why would ANY silver ship be better than their premium counterparts? Yes, I saw. All 12 battles of it, all in a tier 4. Clearly you are the crowning expert on the topic of carriers. If you acknowledge that the economy sucks, then why do you insist on arguing to him about it? The economy is just a subsection of his post anyways. And what all battleboats and destroyers captain wants is to see carriers struck from the listings so they can go back to their pew pew game with impunity without having to worry about positioning or foresight. If you had the integrity to form an honest argument, which you obviously do not, you would realize that trying to push a motive onto the OP does nothing to diminish the validity of his points. His motives are irrelevant quite frankly if he is right. The points he brings up are used to form an argument which carries weight with people. If you had the integrity to fight him on his points instead of trying to poison the well against him then you might actually manage to convince someone. You seem to think "reading between the lines" is some magic ability that gives you some inherent ability to understand what others do not. The desire to get planes that are more resilient to AA and which can do reliable damage is something that he is DIRECTLY ADVOCATING. You also did this with WG, ascribing a motive to them as if that constitutes an argument. It does not. He brings up issues with the current statement about carriers and that stands regardless of if he is going so for some ulterior motive or otherwise. A true statement is true whether or not it is said by a saint or a mass murderer and trying to dodge the argument to "read between the lines" and attack the person directly isn't clever. It's lazy and pathetic. Yes, the first nerf. As there has only been one. Instead of a series of long and self-serving complaints that has resulted in nerf after nerf. Your point is at least in the text this time. Too bad it's still built upon an indefensible premise. Remember this? I bought it back here because as things are right now, cruisers accounts for 71 ships in the game whilst battleships accounts for 38. You seem to think that cruisers are just there to get citadeled. So we have a class with 71 members there just to spend their time "praying to not get citadel raped". As this class is ruining the game for a significantly bigger class of ships, where is the great battleship nerf? You could argue that the battleships are the largest part of the player base, but that's because they are so good at ruining games for cruisers. WG acknowledges that battleships are overly popular and are overperforming, yet they don't get a nerf. CAs are rare to find now, some matches only have 1 or 2 CAs all because the battleships are ruining their game for them. IF it's WG's policy to remove such ships, where is the battleship performance nerf?

From dasCKD's post: "CVs, though their interface shares many similarities to WoT's artillery class, does not fulfill the same roles that artillery allegedly does in World of Tanks." allege [uh-lej] Spell Syllables verb (used with object), alleged, alleging. 1.to assert without proof. Reading comprehension. So you don't look like an idiot.

Logic is a systemic study of arguments that works with deductive (generally) dichotomies in order to produce further statements based upon the previously given statements. That's for later though. For now, let's address your statement that CVs are introduced as a stop gap. I will ignore the fact that you have not provided so much as a hint to what this stop gap was introduced for in order to continue this argument without having this descend into a game where we attempt to score a point in your ever shifting goalpost. For this statement to be true, there must be three things. One, the problem that exists within the game. Two, the temporary (key word being temporary) solution which is the CVs. Three, the interaction between the problem and the introduced solution that would result in the problem being temporarily addressed. In order to see if this position of yours is even tenable, we must attempt to reverse engineer the game in such a way as to demonstrate this structure. To do this, we must first take a look at what CVs provides to the game. CVs, though their interface shares many similarities to WoT's artillery class, does not fulfill the same roles that artillery allegedly does in World of Tanks. Artillery exists in order to stop people from staying still on the map for two long. Carriers are really poor at this whilst both battleships and cruisers are capable of thoroughly punishing the players who attempts to sit still. Carriers in fact are the ones who suffer most from an enemy team that camps their position as it doesn't provide them a steady stream of targets and in fact allows the enemy team to easily prevent them from doing any significant damage. Carriers therefore aren't a stopgap for passive gameplay. Battleships are the primary targets for carriers as even an average carrier player can consistently score damage on battleship targets as long as the AA is weak enough for the planes to fly through. This means that if carriers were a stop gap, they would most likely be a stop gap to the battleship plague. This does not fit the history we are living in however, as battleships didn't dominate games (in terms of numbers) in the same way they are doing right now. If carriers are indeed a stop gap to battleships, then they were a stop gap introduced to an environment where a problem didn't exist. Destroyers are the primary targets for carrier harassment as their dependence on stealth means that carriers are able to disrupt their movement and could potentially even kill them. Carriers therefore could potentially be a response to a problem with the destroyers. To acknowledge that this is true however, we would need to accept that WG took about the most inelegant solution possible to solve a destroyer problem. They could decrease the effectiveness of their concealment or straight up nerf their torpedo reloads and the reload times of their consumables. Introducing an entire class complete with models and a completely different game mode in order to address what they could with a few changes to existing parameters seems like a very ineffective way of doing things. So we have an alleged stop gap that isn't fulfilling a role. Instead of assuming that WG always had plans to introduce carriers to a naval game anyways, you instead think that carriers are the part of some clandestine plan that was created in order to combat an unnamed problem with the game which WG has refused to disclose to any of us. Which is why the Prinz Eugen exists and the Bismark is an extremely powerful competitor that many prefer over the Tirpitz whilst the Chapayev is a very powerful ship that has her place in basically any competitive battle. The Saipan is only overpowered because of how weak the other tier 7 carriers are, her interaction with the other classes would not be unusual at all if all carriers performed like she did. The Belfast and Imperator massively overperforms their tech tree counterparts, yet both the Emden and the Krasny Krim are significantly inferior to the same. Why did you feel a need to post this? If this is some indication of the level of spoonfeeding that you believe people require to process information then I would have to terminate this conversation soon as it is obvious that no reasonable or productive conversation could be had here. Should I remind you that the British cruisers exists? Serious question, do you even read the opening post before you post something or does your Dunning Kruger affliction just lead you to post on a topic you know oh so much about? The thread was created for the OP to express some problems with the current state of carriers and yet your post is a copy-pasted response to the same inane trite that anyone and their dog already has their personal response to. You add nothing. You contribute nothing. You instead assume that just because everyone disagrees with you that means that they are wrong instead of taking a moment to reflect on if you are right. The fact that you are able to simply a modulated and varied structured evaluation of the situation addressing the problem from many facets down to "herp derp WG makes money on premiums so premiums = strong" just expresses the inanity of your thought process. Remember the thing about logic? Here's the thing: logic is just a way to create a structure of argument to make sure that the argument is consistent and not self-contradictory. There's this little thing called GIGO, garbage in garbage out. It doesn't matter how logical your arguments may be in your hollow myopic mind, if your premises are wrong then your logic is useless.

I agree, we should have a space battle map with Yamato and the Currywurst as permanent AI placements a la Bastion whilst ghost ships fly past, pulled through the vacuum by dragons and unicorns.

Well, the smoke might change the direction of the development of future lines. It might provoke the introduction of acquisition modules in future lines (powerful radar on Italian/french cruisers) or it might create far more drastic changes to other classes (giving the USN/IJN BBs acquisition consumables, giving acquisition consumables to DDs or even planes). Ultimately I don't think the situation is really that comparable as the sudden spike in popularity of cruisers like the British lines would be dealt with organically. The introduction of moderately well concealed cruisers with poor armor would prompt users to start sortieing with battleships to reap bountiful harvests of the new user trend. It might change user playstyle as smoke sharing might become a more popular tactic even in the general user base. RN cruisers lack any significant AA firepower until about tier 8 or 9 so carriers can capitalize on what are essentially less maneuverable destroyers. The RN cruiser line, even if it was a popular one, would still have their numbers quenched because its relatively easy to deal with them. Chapayevs and possibly even the KM cruisers would become very popular, and even the New Orleans could find more players again. On the other hand, look at the KM battleships. Extremely difficult to citadel, even by other battleships. Very respectable AA so carriers can't easily crush them unless they're undertiered. The hydroacoustics from tier 8 onwards makes the lives of already crippled torpedo destroyers even more difficult and so even less people play them. The thick deck armor and the changes to superstructure HP coupled with the changes to HE that stops non-penetrating hits from scoring damage means that gunboat DDs and even HE cruisers that are the general enemy of battleships with the absence of carriers and torpedo destroyers means that they have very few enemies there as well. There is no one that is able to exploit the new surge in popularity of KM BBs and BBs in general and so their numbers only grows. The thing is that RN cruisers would be dealt with though organic meta and the surge of players would eventually die down. Nothing can really be done organically about the KM battleships apart from joining them and so people do, people join the KM tree en-mass. So we find ourselves in the present day.

I wouldn't be happy because I don't spend most of my time in carriers. I spend most of my times in cruisers and the prospect of fighting against 183 knots flying Shimakazes carrying F3 81 knots torpedoes which I can't shoot at is not part of my definition of fun. I am also pedantic, but I wasn't being pedantic here. I was being picky admittedly, but the issue remains. Forcing CVs to drop at 4 km or more in return for other mechanic changes is not something I would advocate. Thanks to AA, a CV player will only have so much time to get their perfect drop. A good CV player would be able to balance out the time it takes for their planes to get into position within the time it'll take for the planes to stay mostly healthy, but as long as you start evading early they'll lose most of their firepower.

IJN Type 91 mod. 1A range: 3.4 km USN Bliss Leavitt Mk7 mod 5A: 3.4 km Mark 13 mod. 0A: 3.7 km So you want to make it so CVs can't drop within the MAXIMUM TORPEDO RANGE of their torpedoes. And you see no problems with this. I see. I don't know about anyone else, but when a CV drops on me I take two to four torps out of 6 or 8 max, in a battleship. Maybe it's because I'm just lucky that EVERY SINGLE GAME I play has a bad CV player on the enemy team. Or maybe I'm just not inflicted with a chronic case of Dunning Kruger that makes me think that I did everything possible to prevent the CV's ability to damage me when I, in actuality, did none of it. Dropping far away also costs you aircraft, due to how AA works now. In fact, some ships are basically immune to aircraft if specced correctly even if they're completely alone. Destroyers are able to drop at those ranges because they have faster torpedoes, more torpedoes, the advantage that most of the ships destroyers hunt can't see them coming until the torpedoes are spotted, and a prediction line that shows them where to shoot the torpedoes. If we are going with that meta, then basically what you are advocating for is the creation of Shimakazes that aren't limited by land features, exceeds your ships in speed by ten times or more, and that can't be destroyed at all as you seem to be advocating for the removal of AA effectiveness when it comes to combating planes and therefore are destroying the necessity for AA cruisers.

This thread is not what it seems So I have been playing ranked lately, and thought that it might be good to share notes and compare how we set up and flag our ships. I always try to mount every flag that I think could possibly be useful as possible to the team to make sure I gain as many stars as I can and lose as few as I conceivably could. That being said, here are the flags I mount for the ships I would take. I don't have all these ships obviously, but I do have quite a good idea when it comes to how they perform and I have at least tested them out on the public test server. So here are my flag setups and why I do/would pick them: Carriers Cruisers Battleships Destroyers Those would be my choices anyways. What are yours?