_Flyto_

They are premium - they have the gold icons, they have the premium benefits re untrained captains, etc - they are just premiums with no bonus to gold or XP generation. If we're being pedantic :-)

I think this could be argued either way. I haven't tried (my high-skilled captains are busy at Tiers 8 & 9) but I'm guessing AFT allows you to invisi-fire. And, either way, extend a slightly anaemic range. OTOH, suvivability expert has obvious benefits. Personally I'd probably go for AFT, but I think both are valild. I'm dubious about torp acceleration on here, at least without Concealment Expert. IMHO a 6.5km spotting distance is too much to use 8km torps without some major risk. (yes, we all managed 6km and 7km at Tier 5, but they were more agile ships, and still it was quite common to get spotted by mistake)

And less speed, and worse maneouverability. It's almost like it was a completely different ship :-) New Hatsuharu has a lot more in common with old Hatsuharu than old Mutsuki.

This may be a silly question, but just on the offchance that you haven't played a battleship with torps before: a common mistake with Tirpitz is to switch to torps (3) and then to switch back to guns with (1), thus loading HE. It's a hard-to-shift habit from playing destroyers...

To be fair, it probably ought to look like London sometime in the period from about 1905 to 1950. It doesn't seem too far off for that - all the landmarks are in roughly the right places, at least. I'm sceptical about whether some of the larger ships would ever have fitted through Tower Bridge, either in terms of draught (depth) or air draught (height) - hell, at the giant-ship size they have in game, even the light cruiser I'm looking at seems questionable - but hey :-) EDIT: And as a bonus, if you had Belfast there she'd be in about the right place for present day!

Congratulations? :-)

This is rather odd when the http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/public-test/public-test-0516/ explicitly asks us to test Neptune... (although as it turns out the mission seems to progress for winning any 10 random battles, not just ones in the stated ships)

I've just played a couple of matches on Bastion on North, one in Fiji and one in Edinburgh. Some of the surveillance stations seem to be invisible - there's a symbol above some trees, but it's not clear where the target is. The fort that I was shooting at consisted of some guns and a tower in a large military base, behind a wall. It wasn't obvious to me which buildings were valid targets to damage the fort. Shooting in the area of the guns and the tower seemed to do some damage, but when I got close (~3-4 km) it was no longer possible to shoot over the wall, and I just ended up shooting the wall for no damage. Is this intended?

Ah! Well, thank you for being more helpful than everybody else in this thread ;-)

Ah, thank you - I see what you mean. But, I still don't see its relevance to the original post. So far as I understand it (and I admit that it's not the most clearly written thing that I've seen), the OP was asking whether it wouldn't make sense to be able to designate two secondary targets, one on each side of the ship. That might make sense or it might not (I can think of arguments both ways), but so far nobody has actually engaged with the topic ;-)

I had a battle recently that was rather illustrative of a common problem of back-seat captains... Start of a Standard Battle. The two destroyers on the team act fairly cautiously, sailing a few kilometres in front of their team. A BB captain rages at them that they should be out spotting. The destroyers head deeper into the map to look for enemies. Nobody else follows, so they are isolated. They meet a large chunk of the enemy team, and fairly quickly annihilated. A BB captain rages about the destroyers that charged off and died. There is no "correct" behavior - it depends on the tactical scenario - but usually[1] the people driving the destroyers have reasons for doing what they are doing, and understand them better than their teammates. [1] I say usually, because of course there are muppets in this game who have no tactical awareness.

..... So far in this thread, The OP made a suggestion for a game feature. Somebody simply said "NO" and linked them to a thread that doesn't seem especially relevant, except in that it also concerns secondaries The OP felt (justifiably, IMHO) wounded Somebody explains how the manual secondary skill works, which is not what the OP asked A supertester said that.... well, frankly I don't even understand post number 5, I have no idea what they were trying to say. This is pretty poor in general, but in the newcomers' forum? Really?

Oh, quite right re Isokaze. So make that Minekaze / Fujin / etc, then, with 6km concealment (5.4km with a 15-pointer), i.e. T5 or T8 will easily outspot the IJN T6/7 ships. I stand corrected re Nicholas - thought that was sneakier than it is. But the point remains that what used to make the slow IJN DDs survivable was that they were stealthier than anything they met, and hence could control when they engaged. That's no longer the case, and they don't have the close-in firepower to win an unexpected fight or the speed to run away from one. To my mind, it's a problem. (And yes, these things are worse for Fubuki - as I said, she's even worse off)

That's a bit much to expect at T6, though?

Old Mutsuki was stealthy and fast : She could control whether she got into a knife-fight, and if she found herself in one accidentally she could run away. Ognevoi is fast and has big guns - if she can't outshoot it, she can outrun it. T6 Fubuki is even worse than the Hatsu - visible, slow and poorly armed[1]. She (or, to a lesser extent, Hatsuharu) is outspotted by most of the DDs she meets, will lose to most of them at close range, and is slower than them so can't flee. Hatsuharu may be the stealthiest T6 (is that even true compared to the US one?) but remember that she's meeting everything from Izokaze to Benson in battle. [1] quite well armed in some regards, but not for a close-range fight with other DDs.

+1. I keep on activating hydro when I mean to repair in British cruisers. I doubt that it's possible to keep them in consistent fixed locations, because of the sheer variety of consumable combinations on ships and the clashes that would result - but being able to move them between slots to personal preference would be the best way to address this.

Please stop throwing games just because of a mission...

I play Mogami with the 8" guns; I found the glacial turret traverse with the 155mms hopeless, although I recognise that others like them. She's an upgrade on Myoko in most ways, although her armour feels a *little* weaker, BUT, now she meets T10 much of the time. That means bigger, more accurate guns, and better players. In Aoba and Myoko you could mostly just zoom around at high speed, dodge a lot, and hope that the BBs didn't hit you. In Mogami you need to actively use cover, and constantly look out for who can see you, who is aiming at you, and so forth. It takes more careful play - and sometimes you will just get one-shotted anyway - but with the vastly better turret traverse than Myoko (8" guns only) she's a lot more flexible and able to react once you get used to it.

The purpose of Hatsuharu is "The one you grind through to reach Shiratshiyu". Having said that, once fully upgraded (freexp to get the 10km torps) I'm finding her much more playable than the new Fubuki. The concealment is slightly less awful, and she's faster and has an extra gun.

Hang on... you're complaining both that enemies don't drive into your torps, and that they mock you when they do? I wish 12/15km torps were still around, but the 10s are manageable, and the 8km ones are surprisingly fun if you have Concealment Expert. I agree that the reload is long, but one of the 3m credit upgrades does a lot to help with this. And don't feel that you have to sit and wait. The Yugumo has pretty good guns, and quite a big invisifiring window even without Concealment Expert or AFT! I think the mid-tier IJN destroyers are in a pretty poor state right now, but for me the new T9 is the big success of the re-work.

I'm stuck on Danae, mostly hating it. I can see how it's *meant* to work, but most of the I can't do it without smoke. However, I have had a wonderful YOLO moment when I've used the rocket-boosted acceleration to come out from behind an island, drive between two battleships and torp both :-) (and then died before the torps even hit. Flesh Wound Double Strike.... )

Thanks :-)

I think you misunderstand. They are not planning to remove the premium camo that you paid for, or the "cloned" one that you received as a result of this. I, and others, have never bought any premium camo, but have nevertheless received them for a number of Japanese destroyers. It is *these* unpurchased camos that they have said they will remove. I am a bit sad about this, but that's a different topic :-) So I'd relax, and if you do find that your camo is gone then definitely raise a ticket as that is not what they have said they will do!

Clause 6.4 in the Terms & Conditions appears to be truncated. It reads "Violation of the guidelines contained in Item 5.5.4. will be considered as major violation of the ST Rules and may result in:" and then stops there. (yes, I did consider submitting this as a sample bug report, but figured that might not be appreciated ;-) )

Normally I would say "Yes, DDs should cap at the start". If the team don't support, that is a problem, but that isn't going to be solved by ignoring caps. However, with the new mid-tier IJN destroyers, capping has become VERY dangrous. When you have a 6.8km spotting distance (with camo) and a 35 knot top speed, a US destroyer can sneak up on you - and then they outgun you and you can't run away. So with Fubuki/Hatsuharu I'm quite reluctant when it comes to early capping. (yes, Russians are very visible and don't make ideal cappers either - although at least they have the speed to get out of dodge when they need to)