dasCKD

Yes, cruisers are so OP. That's exactly why every game is overflowing with cruisers with almost no destroyers or battleships at all. Yes, that's exactly it.

Burn them Torpedo them Spam AP into their superstructure

The issue is that the proposed solution here does not make sense in the context and that it could be handled far better than simply damage that scales with range. The idea that you do less damage the further away you are the less damage you do can simply be handled by making battleship penetration fall with range far faster and making the side of a cruiser's citadel armor angle with the ship's silhouette and making the deck armor either better armored or making the citadel armor capable of increasing effective thickness with angling. The combination of reduced penetration at range and increased citadel armor effectiveness at range will mean that we basically get your proposed value of 4k damage per hit (which is already less than the basic penetration of certain battleships) so battleships will need to close in before they can expect to see big damage numbers both against cruisers and other battleships. In compensation, make it so that battleships lose less of their accuracy at higher ranges (depending on their nation of course) which would mean that anyone except those who can aim will have difficulty hitting targets at range. One issue with battleships is that dispersion makes it so that even a badly aimed shot can land citadels due to the combination of how large the hit region of battleships are and how vulnerable cruisers are to citadel hits from plunging fire. This new system would mean that cruisers will only have to make minimal course corrections to avoid the battleship's salvos at ranges where they'll have amble time to react to the threat. This would mean that the cretins who sit back and snipe will stop seeing random large citadel numbers and force them to play in a way that would make them perform consistently instead of praying to RNGsus for citadel hits at 24 km which they'll no longer get with this new system. This may create a meta where battleships just spams HE at longer rangers (thanks to the highly effective battleship HE shells) but we can't fix everything at once. This, I believe, will achieve the effect that you want without compromising any significant realism in the game. This will make cruisers happy because it means they'll no longer get deleted in one salvo at 20+ km. This will make battleships (with enough skill for anyone to care about what they think) happy because it means that they are being rewarded for aiming well instead of having RNGsus take the wheel. It might also require battleships to pick what shells they will choose to fire. I think this is the best solution for everyone. One last note: we can also make incoming fire alert a tier 1 skill, taking up the place where situational awareness used to be. As captains can now choose to take incoming fire alert without compromising some extremely important skills like expert marksman or last stand, we will be able to further reduce the effectiveness of long range sniping without compromising realism to any large degree.

Making shots count more wold do a lot to help the meta. An increase to credits from the new tanking damage would raise profits even higher, which would mean that even those without the best aim or tactical awareness would be rewarded for doing their part for the team.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel less stupid.

Fine, whatever. I was getting tired of arguing with a wall anyways.

First of all, Africa was not "great" under British colonial rule. They were passable compared to the likes of Belgium and other nations still entrenched in the slave trade, but they are no means great. To say otherwise is delusional at best. They were exploited, their citizens were second class compared to natural born Britons, and they had no way to preserve national identity. There is no "Africa", Africa is a continent that has nations both moderately competent and disastrously bad. There is no ruler of Africa, and their legal and political system follows that of their colonial conquerors. To simply say that they didn't learn from the British is asinine because if they learnt from the British at the time that the British conquered them then they'd be fielding armies, ignoring national boundaries, and using superior weapons to coerce their neighbors into doing what they want. The simple fact is that Britain had control of hundreds of nations and what did they do with that power? They harvested the nations they controlled for every single speck of semi-valuable dust. The fact that the States had to break away from the UK to 'learn' from the UK speaks volumes especially as the US crafted the freedom of speech and faith as their holiest of tenets whilst the British had blasphemy laws in the books until barely a decade ago. To claim the achievements of the States as Britain's because once a long time ago they controlled the States is blatantly dishonest. What lessons? The British taught them no lessons, the British just exploited them for their resources. I am also so glad that you are so worried about all those rocket launch salvos and world class rocket firms that the British so obviously left them however. News flash: India had a thriving Civilization before the Brits dropped by. The British did nothing to address the glaring social classism issues in India (maybe because that'll make them feel like hypocrites considering how the Brits treat their own working class) but simply exploited social discontent to overthrow the existing government. Whilst an effective and powerful move in the game of nations, it is absurd to paint this as some humanitarian favor that the British have done for the Indian people. Due to their lack of natural resources and close trade routes that demanded that they pushed forwards to construct a working society. Admittedly Australia is a nation that does owe a fair bit to the UK in terms of society (though we at large and NZ in particular should be glad that they didn't adopt the UK's imperialistic tendencies), but considering that the Western Sahara is a first world country I see little to be impressed with just being the Cold War serf of the United States. What an inane prospect. Do you seriously believe that civilizations didn't exist in Africa before colonial rule? I guess the US takes after the UK more than I thought considering how poor the UK's education system must be.

I've resisted commenting on this thread, but I gave the idea some thought and this is not a sustainable multiplayer game tactic. The simple fact is that in World of Warships, you are up against 8-11 random players on your team and 12 random players on the enemy team. It might be annoying when you are put in the team with T8 premiums being operated by players with 20 matches total, team killers, and free XP tier jumpers, but probability would mean that you should be facing those exact same players in similar numbers. It's all well and good to whine about MM screwing you over, I personally do it over teamspeak all the time especially when a senior clan member waxed my backside in a 10 game losing streak in my Amagi, but MM is screwing over everyone in basically the same way. When a player has a high win rate over a large number of games, it doesn't just mean that they are good but that they are able to work around the less talented members of their team. It means that half the time when the cretins get sided with them, they can still pull through and make up for their team's failings. When I play on a bad team, I don't get angry at the bad team but I simply get annoyed that I wasn't strong enough to make up for them where a better player would have been able to.

If shunning the UK is a road to failure, then why was the US a success? What you are doing now is nothing but special pleading and moving the goalpost. You exclude any nation that turned its back on its imperialistic conquerors and then just state that any nation that doesn't follow the UK's way is doomed to failure which is an absurd statement. If anything, the nations of Africa (that were actually ruled by the British) is a testament to the fact that the British wanted to do nothing but prey on smaller countries like every empire and regime humanity has ever conceived. Africa didn't go backwards, they were simply unable to advance their economics after the empires of the imperialistic era collapsed and they were left without a base to exploit them. Edit: witch doctor? Really? Do you have any knowledge of Africa's socioeconomic structure that doesn't come from a NGO documentary to raise sympathy money?

The Ognevoi really wasn't that bad after the turret health pool increased. Without smoke, the British cruisers will become Atlantas (torpedoes and radar with small and well mechanized but poor damage guns) and I don't know if that would be a good addition for the majority of the players especially considering how map dependent Atlantas often are.

They shunned imperialist UK and are doing well and that's why they bought them up. As are a lot of nations in other parts of the world that aren't Africa. Is there any country in Africa by the way that DIDN'T shun the Empire and are now a glittering metropolis of science and progress. I'm asking because I genuinely didn't know but if not shunning the UK is a road to success then I'm sure you'd be able to provide some examples for me.

After lecturing me about reading comprehension, you then performed that egregious jumping of the shark. If you were so proud of your language, perhaps you'd do well to master it. My words: "That may well be, but that doesn't change the fact that the Nazis would not have been shunned if they won. Same with the Soviets." Britain, in case your history lessons didn't cover the fact(is UK's educational system falling below even the State's), won WW2. My point was that the victor can commit the most atrocious of crimes (i.e. the Nazis or Soviets) but if they won then those crimes would be excused by the public at large. The Nazis lost, and the Soviet collapsed under their own bad policies. How exactly are they victors in this case? You'd find plenty of people who'd defend Britain's actions in India, the Hong Kong, and many other areas. How many people do you think you can find who'd defend the invasion of Poland, or the occupation of France?

How does that, in any way, disprove my point?

Very true. I do wish that they'll reconsider the smoke. Scale back the AA or range of the guns if they had to. Cruisers with smoke have a proven record and the UK is as good a nation as any to test it out in a wider way.

That may well be, but that doesn't change the fact that the Nazis would not have been shunned if they won. Same with the Soviets.

We're still doing this? USA shunned the British Empire as I recall.

British battlecruisers were interesting, but I'd rather they put out their destroyers. If they're anything like the Blysawica, then I can't wait!

I suppose you didn't. What do you know? You actually got one on me. Well done. Still doesn't change the fact that the whole Britain protected the world thing is still as silly as ever.

China is about as imperialistic as they come, they come from economically conquering smaller countries. Look at China's investment portfolio and you'll see them turning African nations into their private rare earth metal mines. The IMF is the same thing. Just because they no longer DECLARE themselves imperialistic doesn't mean stronger nations have stopped picking on weaker nations for profit.

Like whose? I wasn't the one who tried to bring up an argument that went "herp derp the British had big navy so give us best ships" and spoiled this thread. Whilst I think the choice to completely remove smoke was a poor one, I had tried to give some suggestions that could stabilize the line with something unique to make them competitive. The British Empire, regardless of their merits and failings, is not something that should even be relevant when discussing British cruisers.

I'm not even European you wankstain. Don't you find it pitiful whatsoever that your arguments basically boil down to "oh look at you! You're x!" and a view of Britain's history so rose colored that mass genocide probably looks like tea and crumpets?

Earned not on the merits of culture, but by the power of their military. If the Nazis won WW2, I guess their genocidal tendencies and policies structured around racial purity would be correct as they have earned their dominance. Forgive me for my idealism, but I would have thought that we would want to move beyond such barbarism.

Britain loses in terms of technology to Germany and ran and hid from them in WW2 until their former cotton farm came over to help. To answer your inane question, I learnt French for the same reason I learnt English. So I can expand my horizons and move beyond the jingoism of those who are so bereft of personal merit that they feel the need to leech off the achievements of those long dead and who shares nothing with them but a flag.

Please post a video or replay when creating a bug thread. It will help resolve the issues faster.

You are using names to shame people, prescribing intention where none is implied, and overlooking his points to pick on who he is. Be careful what you fight, for you may find yourself turning into them.