_Flyto_

Yes, if you can consistently land salvos on target and keep doing that for a while without exploding. The 6" version of Mogami benefits from more shells and a higher rate of fire, giving much more DPM (especially with IFHE), but even the buffed turret turn is still slow, making it harder to react, and as others have noted she doesn't have the range or smoke that other HE-spammers have, and the slow turrets mean that dodging and weaving will impact DPM, so survivability will be a challenge.

Oh, that's interesting, because that would put the 155s at the same speed as the Myoko's turrets - i.e. what people are used to when they first get Mogami, rather than a massive slap in the face :-) If I hadn't sold my Mogami, it would make me want to try the 155s again.

You can only earn the other rewards once, but the pins repeat. Sounds sensible. She's fairly typical for a Japanese T6-9 cruiser, except that her turret turn times are awful (they're actually the same as some battleships!). So if you like the ship except for the slow turrets, you'll probably like the rest of the line The RN cruiser guns have pretty high arcs, which make it hard to hit things at range. USN are similar (perhaps a little better), while IJN is much better. Though you might find you can't shoot over the same islands that you used to!

Eh, if this is enough of a buff it will allow me to drop Expert Marksman from my IJN captains and put two points somewhere else, which will be nice... but it's not going to make a big difference to any IJN ships. As others have said, I'd much rather have had either improved torp stealth or un-nerfing of the HE shell damage (which was a move that I never really understood in the first place)

To correct a couple of things, first: For "honourable service" and other campaigns, you don't have to do all the missions to progress - you can repeat the ones that you like more / that you can do. So no need to play BBs just for that :-) The iffy gun performance on French cruisers reported so far is from people playing test ships that may be (and probably will be) changed before release. Wait and see how they actually turn out. This isn't the usual "recommend a cruiser line" question, because you have experience to T8. But you haven't given us much to go on. What aspects of the RN ships do you like, vs not like? If you want something that feels a bit similar to them, the "cruiser line" that I'd recommend is actually Russian destroyers ;-) They skit around, shooting a lot and trying not to get hit. They tend to rely on smoke less than the RN CLs and use speed and simple dodging more. For something totally different, after AP-only light cruisers, try going Japanese for heavy cruisers (T5+) with really good HE? Given what you said about BBs, though, you might not be a fan of 15-second reloads. If you can give more info on what you enjoy or don't, different answers might apply :-) For "not relying on torps", frankly, no cruiser line relies on torps like the RN do, though USN has the distinction of mostly not having any. For trying out radar, until T10 most people seem to prefer the Russian over the US radar because its range is better.

Who cares? Apparently, you do. I care slightly because it's irritating getting notifications of new posts on this thread when they are filled with aggressive drivel. But, you're right, there isn't any real point to my replies. I shall do the sensible thing and just unfollow the thread instead. Have fun.

This. Is. Not. World. Of. Tanks. You tell us that you have seen no evidence of cheats in this game[1]. So why are you going on and on, on this forum, about cheats in a different game? [1] There undoubtedly are cheats for this game, but see earlier comment on how we all agree that this is bad - so ranting about it here wouldn't help anyway.

Ach, enough. 1. Nobody here, so far as I've seen, has disagreed with you that cheats exist. Nobody has disagreed with you that this is a bad thing. 2. Some people here, including myself, have pointed out that some of the cheats that you suggest are very improbable, as they would require hacks of the server, while others are far more plausible as they would only require actions on the client's PC. 3. Many here use mods. Wargaming permit the use of mods, and distribute some themselves. I understand that you do not like this. That's fine, you don't have to like it. You have made your point(s). Unless I've missed anything important, I think that's job done? ;-)

Thinderchief... You're shouting very loudly about how you're on a crusade to say that cheating is bad, as though it's you against the world... but I don't think anybody here would disagree with cheating being bad. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make, or what the purpose of your posts is?

Throwing the game should absolutely be an offense, and I'm pretty sure it already is. I hope that most respectable clans will not do this.

Eh. Clans want to play together. The sooner there's a supported way to do this (other than the training room, where one gets no rewards) the better.

I've seen this too. A game restart fixed it. Perhaps related to the fact that the submarine messed things up so much... so maybe it will go away when the sub does?

That's perhaps a little unfair. When Warspite was introduced, premiums tended to be about as good as the silver line - or maybe very slightly better - but with quirks that made them harder to play. Look at Atlanta for another example ;-) When Warspite came out she had bigger guns than anything at her tier, FAR more accurate guns than anything else at her tier, better speed than one out of two other BBs at her tier, arguably better amour (it was weird) and so forth. For a long time she even "suffered" from a supposed "bug" that gave her an amazing heal. The balancing factors for this, and the quirk that made her a little different as a premium, were the short range and the slow turret traverse. Then Bayern came in with the same size guns, better armour, similar (?) speed, etc and none of the silly turret traverse. Then Mutsu came along with bigger guns still. Power creep sucks, but while I'd never recommend buying Warspite now, it's not fair to say that she was a rubbish ship at release.

Being citadelled through the bow is certainly a thing. It's not about where the incoming shell *hits*, it's about where it *detonates*, and it sounds as though it sailed through your bow into your citadel before exploding. (sadly, although the anchor definitely should deflect large-calibre rounds, I'm pretty sure it's not included in the armour model!) In general, although I haven't checked your stats, I'm guessing that you haven't spent many battles in tier 7-9 cruisers. They are all very vulnerable to BB fire, and no matter how good you are there will be occasions when you spontaneously explode. Mogami and Atago are two of the more vulnerable ones out there; but the fact that Atago is widely considered to be one of the best T8 cruisers suggests that other aspects of her performance make up for it in skilled hands.

At higher tiers the RN CLs don't play like destroyers, but a lot of experience in destroyers will certainly help you to play them - it means you're familiar with managing visibility and, if you've played US destroyers, with actually hitting things when your shells go via a call at the International Space Station. But you are right that they are very fragile - in fact more fragile than destroyers in many respects. That doesn't change throughout the line, although from T5 you do get smoke to help you manage it. As others have said, I wouldn't advise anybody to start with British cruisers until they've gained quite a bit of experience with the game (and in particular understand well visibility mechanics and armour mechanics - how to citadel things, and how to avoid that yourself). These ships (at least at T6 and above) are very powerful, but also very unforgiving; they take a lot of skill and concentration to use well. But of course, so long as you're enjoying it, feel free to ignore such advice!

I would also note that creating accounts with anything other than one's "legal" name is a breach of Facebook's ToS. I'm sure Wargaming wouldn't want to be encouraging that sort of activity? ;-)

Yeah - just like Iowa was 10k tonnes more than NC/SD for about 10 knots in top speed. (OK, slightly longer guns too, I think). There's a quote from some American admiral grouching about it. There might be some other considerations specific to Nelson & Hood (they were rather different in armour schemes, for example), but a big reason is in naval architecture and hydrodynamics. As a ship moves through the water she creates waves at her bow and stern. As you make a ship go faster and faster, you are trying to drive her uphill, up her own bow wave. You *can* go faster, but you have to put exponentially more power in to do that. And that requires more space, and weighs more, and you have to expand the ship to provide room and buoyancy. Altenatively, you can make the ship longer. This changes the shape of the bow wave and allows you to go faster with the same power. Except that you also increased the ship's weight by making her longer... Either way ends up in complicated feedbacks, but the upshot is that since battleships tended to have tight weight budgets (if the engines are heavier, you can't have as much armour) and to be built to the state of the art in terms of how much power you can fit into a given size engine room[1], if you want to go faster you have to be longer. IIRC a lot of the British battlecruiser designs were really long. [1] AIUI the main reason the South Dakota class (Alabama) could be shorter than the earlier North Carolinas was that improved technology allowed more powerful propulsion (to cope with forcing the shorter ship through the water) to be fitted into a smaller space (because smaller ship = less space available)

I don't think a single premium proves this - if a battlecruiser line were released, this ship could easily be relocated to it! (actually, if the split DD lines are anything to go by, it might just be a split Battleship line, which premiums would sit outside of anyway). I have doubts about how battlecruisers would (will) be balanced to work in this game, but that's a different topic.

To answer the question in the title, "no". To answer the implied question of "why", I reckon it's an anti-sealclubbing mechanism. If the 60% improvement applied at all tiers then there are a few lower-tier ships that would become super-powerful and unbalanced if somebody put a high-level captain in them. When the skill was introduced it was fairly transparently designed to avoid Warspite benefiting too much, but since the German BBs arrived the same issue would apply to Nassau or Kaiser - if you could get -60% dispersion you could win games just by sailing them close to enemies and waiting.

9 losses in a row is easy with this simple two-step plan! 1. Lose 8 times 2. Lose again.

Think you might need somebody to write a mod. Though personally I wouldn't remove the text - I forget that I have my guns locked, and fire at an empty bit of sea, often enough even with it!

Epicenter was awful at first, but now that it's been around long enough for most players to actually understand how it works, I rather like it as an occasional thing. Provided it's on maps that it works for, which does NOT include Tears of the Desert...

It used to be "Navigator". It's still there, but it's changed its name and you'll need to reselect it. I forget what it's called now, I'm afraid.

IMHO whether Myoko is good depends entirely on whether you're prepared to put battleship-level thought into gun management, since she has the same turret traverse speed as Colorado. If you can manage those guns effectively she's one of the best-armoured and best-armed T7 cruisers. If you can't... well, she isn't. The same thing applies to the 155mm Mogami, I guess, which is even worse in that regard. 203mm Mogami... well, I think she's a good ship, in that she has the benefits of Myoko but fixes the traverse speed and has a better turret layout. The armour feels a *little* flimsier, but I might be imagining that. But T8 is a painful tier for cruisers, because they're fighting T9 and T10 all the time but don't have the heal or (in the IJN's case) the range to really compete with them. Would Atago be preferred to Mogami without the heal? Maybe. She has the Myoko's annoying C-turret setup, and a rather slow RoF, but she does have the better torp angles, so I'd probably choose her anyway. It's far from clear, and the heal is undoubtedly the big decider.