_Flyto_

It hasn't. I tended to believe the WG staff members who have told us that it was in the game before, until I saw the video that was linked in this post. At 1:10 into the video, an enemy Atlanta appears for less than a second before vanishing and re-appearing. If the 3-second rule was in place it should not have been possible for an enemy to be visible for less than 3 seconds; therefore, this video proves that the rule was not in place when it was recorded.

Hmm, I'd love to see a rating that depended entirely on win rate (since IMHO that's the only important stat, taken over a sufficiently large number of battles). I thought warships.today did this, but it looks as though I was wrong :-(

Try some cruisers for your very first games. As others have said, up to ~T4-5 they're forgiving generalists, although beyond this they can become hard-to-play glass cannons. Once you've got basic manoeuvring and gunfire down, though, there's no harm in trying out the other ship types - at T2 or T3 they're not too specialised, and one of them may suit you :-)

Really? Is that allowed?!

As you would both know if you had read the thread, I and a number of others have tried to replicate the problem in training rooms and failed (we have found the 3-second delay, but nothing longer). This problem is not "very easy to replicate for anyone"; unfortunately it is more elusive than that.

Huh? Yes, it is triggered at the same time as it would have been triggered by thick armour, meaning that it explodes before it *hits* the thick armour, and hence doesn't penetrate it. I'm entirely willing to be wrong about the mechanism behind the armouring - I'm definitely not an expert on this - but I'm confused by your critique :-)

I believe that being on fire increases your detection range - so as long as the Detected icon was showing, that all sounds as though it was working as intended.

Here's a ridiculous 7-kill Kamikaze game that I had a couple of weeks ago. I'm not claiming that I played it especially well, mind... just that I was unbelievably lucky, especially on the first two kills...

A few random thoughts about playing Kamikaze: It's true that the gap between your torp range and your spotting range is small (unless you have the 5-point captain skill). But you can make this bigger by shooting at targets that are moving towards you. Never try to torp an enemy from behind. If you want to use torps, don't let yourself get spotted. Competent captains will change course when they see a destroyer that has clearly been spotted by accident while launching. If you don't get spotted, they are good torps, as they are very fast for their tier. Don't forget that you have guns, and they're a lot faster-turning than Minekaze ones. Don't be afraid of DD knife-fights (though still don't seek them out), or of using your guns to finish off wounded heavies. Relating to the last point, you can also sometimes use your guns as distraction: If you have accidentally exposed yourself to the battleship that you are trying to torp, once you are spotted anyway, sometimes opening fire (with smoke if possible) will stop the enemy captain thinking of torps. Don't get too focussed on one target, however inviting. You have the speed and manoeuvrability to get out of most situations and reposition yourself. Stay aware of the minimap, and if there's something else that you would be better doing, go do it. The classic case here is the DD captain who spends half of the battle chasing a carrier or a wounded BB across the whole map, when they could be capping points.

It's historically accurate, at least with the deck armour, but AIUI the way that the game models damage means that this historical advance in armour design is actually detrimental. NB - this is theorycrafting w.r.t. Iowa, as I don't have one, but it definitely applies to Tirpitz... The idea was to have a thin armour deck that was just strong enough to trigger an AP shell's fuse and cause it to detonate before it reached the main armour deck / roof of the citadel - thus wasting the explosive energy in destroying "unimportant" areas such as crew messes, offices, etc. Unfortunately, unlike reality, the game has hitpoints, and so long as a shell doesn't get into a ship's citadel, the game doesn't care whether it causes damage to a crew canteen or to something important - the same number of hitpoints are deducted. Consequently, in-game this sort of armour scheme makes citadels hard, but causes the ship to take high damage from normal AP penetration, as though it had much less deck armour than it does. (NB I realise Iowa is not all that hard to citadel, but I think that's usually through the side, not the deck)

Guys, this should not be hard to test, if you have a way to reliably replicate the problem. Get into a training room with a friend, reproduce the problem in the training room, and submit *both* replays together. If nobody has figured out how to reproduce the problem, then the people who have encountered it need to work on this rather than starting drama here.

My training room testing suggests the opposite to what you are assuming - that actual visibility to other players lags the "detected" icon by 2-3 seconds. Examples that we tested: 1. Ship sails out of spotting range; Detected flag vanishes; 2-3 seconds later, ship becomes invisible. 2. Ship sails into smoke; Detected flag vanishes; 2-3 seconds later, ship becomes invisible. 3. Ship just outside spotting range; ship fires; opposing ship sees shells immediately; 2-3 seconds later, ship becomes visible (we did not record when the icon appeared in this instance, so can't actually confirm whether the icon is wrong in this case or not). (4 - Not tested in training room, but from general observation in gameplay: Two ships in mutual spotting distance start hidden from one another by land, and pass the end of the land. Both ships see a "detected" notification; 2-3 seconds later, both ships can see the other) NB for avoidance of confusion: It sounds as though two issues, which may be entirely separate, are being discussed in this thread. One is the short delay that seems to occur between the Detected icon updating (on *or* off) and the ship's visibility updating for the opponent. Given case 4 above, it does seem likely that this has been in the game for a long time, and is only now being commented upon because of testing for the other issue. The other issue is the longer lag that some have reported in undefined circumstances, which I have been unable to replicate.

I've only had one game with a cyclone in it since the patch, which makes it difficult to have a considered opinion... but in that game, I really liked it. With a little bit of warning it totally changed the tactical situation, and made players have to think on their feet to take advantage of that. I haven't encountered it in a carrier, and am not sure whether the inability to see ships that others have spotted is too harsh for them. More of this, please, but (as with this one) introduced carefully and with thought. The cosmetic weather effects on other maps are very atmospheric, but it's a pity they don't last.

Sinking works. As of the last patch, you can even see the steam!

First priority on the new mex is definitely the B hull, and then some form of range upgrade (either the FCS or the credits-only upgrade module). After that, start to think about speed. The difference between the engines is the difference between "really slow" and "nearly as slow", and IMHO doesn't make that much tactical difference.

More generally, it's worth remembering that the hull upgrades (especially the WW1 and inter-war battleships, which were upgraded so extensively throughout their long lifetimes) can cover many decades of advances in technology, so that moving from Tier n C-hull to Tier n+1 A-hull can easily mean going back 30 years. This is why some of the mid-tier stock ships feel so horrible (New Mexico and Fuso are good examples)

Not working. WFM. But, appears to conflict with the Training Room enabler mod. This may be unavoidable, since they both modify the port UI.

You make a good point. So it sounds as though my friend and I just demonstrated an old, and minor, issue. In that case my post above should really have read "A friend and I tested this in a training room and were unable to replicate the problem that others have reported". :-(

Tested with a friend in a training room last night. Every time he lost the "detected" warning, there was a short delay (only ~2-3 seconds in our case) before I lost sight of him. This seemed consistent regardless of the reason that I lost sight of him - whether distance, smoke, or whatever. Interestingly, we sometimes noticed a delay with him appearing as well. If he was just outside spotting range and fired his guns, I would see the shell in flight and then a couple of seconds later, his shop would appear. If anybody official would like our replay files from both sides, please let me know - but it sounds as though QA are on it already!

I've seen French, German, a little Polish. It's not common though.

Most of us did this once or twice when we first got torpedoes! One needs to be really careful when there are friendlies around. The pink label is not permanent - if you play for a while without killing any more team members, it should go away. In the mean time, people will probably swear at you a lot, some may even shoot at you (DO NOT SHOOT BACK)... that sucks, but it's how this game's players are.

Firing your guns increases the range from which you can be detected for 20 seconds[1]. However, the "detected" warning from Situational Awareness takes account of this, and it is this warning on which the OP had based their question. [1] After 0.5.5 this will change to "firing your guns at a range that causes you to be detected will increase the range from which you can be detected for 20 seconds", which is a subtle difference.

Shells from many cruisers have a flight time of 10 seconds or more. Most of those hits are from people who fired while you were visible. A few may be lucky guesses fired a few seconds after you vanished.

It's not about luck, it's about planning. You wouldn't complain that you were unlucky to have battleship guns pointing the wrong way; the same applies to heavy cruisers. Furutaka certainly has an awkward gun layout, as well as a short range for T5, but when you get things right and have your guns pointed the right way from the right distance, she probably has more punch than anything else at that tier, and the low shell arcs make it easy to hit. I had more success with Furutaka than Omaha, and *much* more with Aoba than Cleveland. Some people like shell-spamming light cruisers, while some of us prefer the slightly different style of the 8" ships :-)

Debatable. AP will usually kill it faster, but HE can put it out of action faster (because it can't do much if its deck is on fire). Once it's already on fire (especially if it has used its repair) there's no point in shooting more HE, if you're in a position to penetrate with AP instead.