Capra76

How many of those games were solo rather than in a x3 voice linked division? Edit: Ah, already covered, sry.

I spotted this a while back, the "positive" reviews looked good at first glance but when you dug down into it the +1 was mostly coming from players with low game counts whereas the -1 was coming from players with much more experience, not a good sign for the future of the game.

That doesn't mean it's fun to play against though, the counters tend to be more passive play, waiting spotting, spamming torps from long range etc rather than fighting for caps in DD knife fights or trying to get close to ships to deliver a killer blow. Radar came in primarily to counter one ship - Shimakaze - but she's probably the least affected by it of all.

Mistake?

Oh god: https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/public-test/submarines-beta-playing/ "Everyone can join the testing of submarines on the Public Test 0.9.4 server this weekend!"

You don't need to kill everything to win, if your presence forces DD away from the caps that's a win as well.

The biggest problem with radar is it counters the wrong sort of gameplay. If you want to sit off at 10+ km and spam walls of skill then radar is at worst a nuisance, if you want to start fighting for caps and try to win the game (actual skilled DD play) then you're ed. So radar dumbs down DD gameplay, it forces good players to adopt noob torp-spam tactics by taking more advanced plays off the table.

You could mention that there should be about 40 DD for every BB in game, that Samar proves that AP shells are ineffective against DD and if the torpedoes do detonate the effects of a single one are devastating against pretty much anything.

However the USN built 175 Fletchers compared to 4 Iowas, 98 Gearings compared to 0 Montanas and 30 Bensons compared to 2 NorCars, not to mention the 124 Gleaves/A M Sumners in between, so lets look at the torpedo reload as a proxy for the 40 or so DD that should be there for every BB we have in game.

Presumably the Beta test plan was to concentrate on balancing those 4 ships and then fill in the gaps once that had been done; the fact that the gaps remain tells us again that the rework has failed and WG have in effect given up and moved on to something else. I do not know why you think that would be the case, it seems to be quite the opposite to me.

Same old S_O bull, why we bother I don't know.

Personally I don't see how the class can ever be implemented within the game, the fact that professional game development teams have failed twice would appear to support this. To work the game would need a fundamental rework moving it away from being a FPS on water to something completely different.

Well I guess they're okay or possibly even a minor positive for 3rd rate BB players who just want to pew-pew from line A, who get enough AA to make them unattractive targets to most CV players, and who don't notice the wider effects the class has on the game. Which tells us a lot about what WG thinks of the game's players, or at least which ones WG are pitching the game at.

Yes, but it was a long time ago and WG have changed the rules since then.

Does Survivability Expert come into it? I used to see them regularly in a SE specced Fletcher but that was some time ago (early 2017 I think).

Most just stop playing (that is pretty much where I am).

Is it possible to access the Euro DD or not? According to the notes: The base torpedo modules of Tier V-IX researchable European destroyers will become researchable. The new base torpedo module parameters for each ship will be equal to those of the researchable torpedo module of the previous tier destroyer. In case you already have one of these European destroyers in Port,............ but all that I am seeing is "soon".

I've seen suggestions that they are, anti ship ballistic missiles being a thing and all, we just haven't had a major power conflict to test everyting out.

It's like asking Horatio Nelson to predict naval combat today, you can't look that far ahead because you can't predict what the technologies of the day will be. My guess involves unmanned vehicles able to operate at very long ranges, flying manned aircraft from ships maybe obsolete within a very few years on cost grounds alone.

Erm........ questionable.

200 battles in 52 ships is an average of 4 per ship, that's far too few battles to learn the ship and how it plays. My advice, pick a line, go back to T2 and play 25 games before progressing to T3 and repeat that before you move up to T4 and so on as you progress the line. Also, once you get to T5 consider whether you should start a new line of a different class to learn how that class plays (again 25 battles each time).

and potatoes always potate.............

Really? I would suggest that the case suggests the exact opposite.

Most will get the reference.

Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un AA gunner pour encourager les autres.............