dasCKD

So the repair price that was identical for all tier 10 battleships up to this point is now only applied differently. I can't speak with authority on the issue, but I very much doubt this. CVs have always been the most expensive high tiered ships to repair. I very much doubt that this has changed. Maybe it has, but I very much doubt it until someone shows me some numbers. So a CV is meant to kill enemy planes? The CV on the enemy team also has to kill your CV's planes then? Also to kill your CV's planes? I guess there's no point to attacking enemy ships then. I'll take your word for it, I guess. Also, it's not the CV's job to babysit the battleships. The CV's job is to deal damage first and foremost, then to defend allied destroyers. A BB with tier 10 AA and captain's experience who can't defend themselves against a single CV strike probably isn't worth very much to the team to begin with. No. A Saipan, a tier 7 premium, can do 160k damage and come out with barely 400k whilst I'm pretty sure that a Sharnhorst or Atlanta with that result would be raking in a million even with a standard account. 100k damage normally pays out at around 150-250k on a tier 8 carrier max, depending on how many DDs I manage to sink. BBs and CAs will benefit from lower repair costs, but CVs shouldn't get damaged anyways and so this new system will just end up shafting them.

Nothing new, the game balancing is done by people who have never had to operate a CV in their entire game career. I'll just use my CVs as a battling ram near the end of the battle until they do something about this new development.

Due to recent WG "balances" to AA and CV loadouts, most CV captains have converted their CVs to golf courses.

WG has attempted to once again prevent camping, this time by nerfing battleship bow armor. This comes across as a government effort to boost the consumption of locally produced products by lacing the produce with the scent of raw sewage. This is old news however, so I thought I might create a list of some things that would prevent camping. I have noticed that the engagement levels on my threads is quite low, and I suspect it might be because I write too much. I will therefore keep this thread short and on point. This is a list of things that WOULD prevent battleship camping. Reduce AP penetration at long ranges Battleships who sit at long ranges sometimes scores a random citadel hit at long ranges with plunging fire and this bolsters their desire to camp and camp hard. If the effectiveness of plunging fire is drastically reduced, battleships would be encouraged to close in to do more damage. Significantly improve cruiser ballistics at long ranges (USN included) If cruisers had better ballistics, they would be able to engage SN DDs at longer ranges and the most recent nerf wouldn't have been needed. It would also mean that if battleships insists on sitting bow on at maximum range, they won't be able to sit safely at the back anymore because the bow on thing will make themselves an easy target for just about every single cruiser on the enemy team. Think of the Zaos but everywhere. Make incoming fire alert a first line skill If incoming fire alert did become a line one skill, then more cruiser captains would be able to take it and avoid hits at long ranges. This would mean that battleships would need to get closer before they can start scoring any significant damage. Improve battleship concealment, increase battleship concealment penalties when firing The first change will allow battleships to get closer before alerting their prey. The latter would mean that those who just fires randomly would just make themselves an easy target with the improved cruiser ballistics suggested above. Many may have criticism of the suggested ideas, but all of this would either stop or at least disincentive battleship camping by making back line camping a much more dangerous prospect for them.

I think matches should start with the guns and torpedoes fully loaded on all ships and planes fully serviced. On the lower tiers, it's not that much of an issue but on the higher tiers it means that you could arrive at the front lines with 40-60 seconds left on your torpedoes which you won't be able to use even if it could potentially buy an advantage for your team early on. I'm sure everyone here can think of a situation when you start the game with all weapons fully prepared could help the team. This would make sense on a gameplay level, as it offers more possibility. It would make sense on a internal logic level, because ships sailing towards a hostile force would most likely have all their weapons fully loaded and ready to fire at any moment. I think that this is something that should be added to the game.

Depending on the carrier, it's 15-30 seconds of difference at most.

Because WG wishes to reward the lazy and mediocre.

Co op teammates really need to be buffed. I remember one of my earlier Ryujo game, I was in the phase where I still played co-op to grind some of my ships to their full status before hitting the waves in random. I started off the game disrupting a torpedo attack and nuking their Ryujo out of the water in the opening minutes of the game. I then used my dive bombers to set the enemy Fuso on fire who promptly burned down because the bot burned the repair earlier. I probably did at least 30k damage in all by those 3 fires. By the time my planes arrived back at my carrier (first attack run), we had already lost 3 ships.

I'd rather remove the buttons "A" and "D". It's not like the majority of BB players would notice.

I don't necessary think it's wrong for BBs to camp. I prefer it if I'm in a cruiser because I can help my DDs blow up the enemy DDs then just vanish into invisibility whilst the BBs on the 1 line just sits back awkwardly without anything to shoot at until I decide to burn them to the waterline. I personally prefer games where I have a large area to deal with an enemy cruiser peacefully, cruiser duels whilst allied and enemy torpedoes goes flying all over the place composes most of my most enjoyable moments in wows (that and nuking SN DDs, screw those buggers!) and so I'm mostly fine with every last BB humping the back line whilst the rest of the ship does their thing. It's just that WG wants to change the game into something that more often involves getting closer and brawling and so I started this thread. I'm mostly fine with the current state of affairs, the poor experience I have at tier 9 is mostly caused by the fact that my ships at those tiers are rather weak. It's just that if WG wants to tweek the mechanics to punish back line campers they should tweak a mechanic that punishes back line campers instead of hitting everyone with an unreasonable and irrelevant nerf.

Longer burning fires so fires that burn for their full duration would still do the same amount of damage if not more damage to enemy target and punishing players who doesn't use damage control at appropriate times. Edit: I suppose you can also add secondary effects to fires like you have secondary effects for flooding. Not sure that those could be though.

Well, I think just about everyone agrees with that. Bad players are bad players, and unfortunately no amount of advice can really change that.

Actually how about this? Significantly decrease the DOT of fire and significantly increase the time that fires burns for. This means that battleships that closes in to dispatch of the cruiser threat can do so without much DOT at which point they can burn their repair party whilst BBs that camp will still get roasted to death?

That's the thing. BBs can close in to cruisers like IJN, USN, and the future RN cruisers can close in and ambush destroyers. The increased concealment penalty and improved cruiser ballistics will mean that battleships will have significant issues staying at the back.

33 mm if fixed I assume. Thank you for the information, I'll keep it in mind for future reference.

I disagree. Whilst performance overall suffers from a player that camps at the back, they will get lucky once in a while and deal debilitating damage to an enemy cruiser. This will cause them to gain a moment of catharsis from the experience and encourage their behavior. Remove this artificial high, and I genuinely believe that more BBs will close in for better results.

This is actually not true. HE has the penetration of 1/6 of the gun's caliber (1/4 in the case of KM BBs) therefore the HE of most cruisers will do 0 damage if it hits a piece of armor that is around 39mm or thicker. I mostly face Atlantas in CAs and DDs so I can't say much about that. She's just a big DD anyways, I just shoot HE at her. AP if she angles, so I get citadel hits. You can just spec your BBs for concealment. I know I will, mostly to avoid SN DDs and their HE. Those ships are basically impossible to hit at their extreme range unlike the Atlanta.

Glad you like it

Unless they are no enemies nearby, a BB should not be trying to cap. They can delay a cap, but if a BB just sits there, detected, inside of a cap then you are only delaying your team's capping by losing the cap points to enemy fire.\ That means you want the team with a numerical disadvantage to charge a larger amount of firepower even if they had a chance to win if they just delayed the enemy and kept their own ships alive. Unless the enemy has more caps and will overtake your team on points, this is terrible strategic advice. A team at a disadvantage should be doing everything they can to win, not sabotaging their own chances of victory by bleeding ships. Noob isn't a universal insult. It can't be applied to players who are playing to the benefit of their team. Nevertheless, otherwise a good piece of advice. That's fine. Only because those DDs and CAs don't want to die. This advice is not always applicable. DDs hunting in a pack surrenders strategic victory to the enemy if the enemy's DDs are more proactive in capping. Also not applicable if the enemy DD shows up with a cruiser. Bad advice. If a CV is in game in domination, a CA's first duty is protecting the allied DDs from the enemy CV. Chasing away the enemy DDs and keeping allied DDs alive in domination is significantly more important than hunting down enemy DDs at the cost of your ship. Unless you have a team full of stock Amagis and a Hakuryuu on the enemy team then your BBs should be expected to protect themselves early game. A battleship can expect to survive a CV strike, a DD can't.

DDs are the favorite prey of the gourmet CV.

This is the greatest idea ever and is in no way gamebreaking and insane and therefore should be implemented ASAP. P.S. How about we give the USN cruisers ice cream escort ships, providing extra heals for the USN ships and ships in the immediate vicinity?

Well, ultimately I think that applies for everyone. No one really wants to be in front to get mauled by the enemy team whilst the rest of the team stays back and watch. I've seen charging tactics work, but only because the entire team all did it at once. WG does want a game where everyone gets close into exciting distance and brawling, but it can't happen in the current atmosphere of randoms where people have to look after their own ships and remain far back to do damage least their accounts bleeds credits.

You can only get set on fire four times. Even so, I personally get maybe 130 shell hits in a decent game in my Ibuki. This would mean that I would get a total of 2-3 fires in the entire game with a 2% fire chance(1-2 fires thanks to natural high tier flame immunity), fires that can be easily repaired in moments. I don't play that many BBs compared to other classes, but if I see a HE spamming cruiser I kill it as soon as possible because I can't deal with an enemy battleship whilst the cruisers are pumping HE into my superstructure. Admittedly I mostly play IJN BBs so I am able to deal with HE spammers at range but if battleship players want to just wait until the cruisers are all dead before getting close then they'll just end up being roasted to death because a cruiser is in no hurry to get close to a battleship, especially a high tiered one. Wanting to fight every battle on nothing but your preferred terms just won't happen in a game with multiple players and classes. I personally have no issue getting close to a cruiser in my BBs by using island cover and my ship's natural concealment. I'd rather get close to a cruiser in a battleship than another battleship considering a battleship's guns can end me in moments whilst most cruisers can't do something like that (how many Des Moinnes do you see running around?). The only class I'd rather avoid getting close to than another battleship is a destroyer.

It's not a condition, it's a suggestion to WG. The suggested changes makes it so that at maximum distance and bow on a battleship will be taking similar damage to if they are leading the charge along with the allied ships. WG has expressed a desire to stop battleships from staying at the back by implementing tanking mechanics and changing over to a fixed battle price system. The suggestions here are things that WOULD disincentivize back line camping instead of incentivizing it like the bow armor nerf would.

I started this thread because WG was nerfing the bow armor as a ploy to get BBs to go forwards. They therefore want BBs to stop camping and go forwards. I have suggested things which WOULD incentivize BBs to go forwards or at least disincentivize staying at the back instead of scaring them to the back of the map by nerfing their bow armor. Edit: I do camp, mostly in my carrier. I do however also camp using the Ibuki because even a Nagato can end my game in one salvo if I get any closer than 13 km. This simply does not apply to BBs. I also have no issue if a Kiev humps the back line if they are in a gunfight with a Myoko. Some ships operates well from a distance, most battleships do not.