_Teob_

Thanks for that. However, I am not sure the threads are the same. The one you linked proposes a solution and champions that thus the point of the thread is to discuss that solution. This topic explores the nature of the imbalance. Not quite the same. Not to mention that I am not sure mirroring is the answer. If I were to hazard a solution I would say that there should be a minimum number of DDs (maybe 3 per side?). Like I said for DDs 3v5 is roughly balanced, 3v1 is imbalanced imo.

The notion that an imbalance can be countered by teamplay while valid is also not a good argument. Yes it CAN be countered by good teamplay but the enemy team can also counter you with good teamplay. Pushing into caps when defended by DDs is difficult if you don't have DDs of your own to spot. Torping an incoming target is every DD captain's wet dream (unless they are coming straight at you). Not to mention that they spot you constantly which means that you can be fired upon from cover/behind islands. And towards the end of the game having DDs that can zip around and cap is game winning. All these arguments based on that one game where a team magically beat another team despite adversity while fun to read most certainly do not represent the average. Having said that, there are imbalances and imbalances. On a 3 point dom a team with 3 DDs vs. a team with 5 DDs is pretty balanced - in fact maybe somewhat in favour of the team with 3 DDs. However on the same map a team with 3 DDs vs a team with 1 DD has a clear advantage.

While I disagree with the OP can you people read, damn it?!? The OP clearly states that he feels that in his opinion MK should get the option of smoke OR radar.

I really hope they don't do anything of the sort. The MK is already borderline OP - it does not need radar. That would make it superior to the Chepayev in every way except stealth firing. It would also make it the best DD hunter in the game (as the Chepayev is limited by it's turning circle when it comes to knife fighting DDs). The MK already has multiple strengths in the form of AA, great turning circle, great rudder speed and the smoke is its flair, it's what makes it special.

Very true.

Well hold on a second. It's not bad to discuss stuff like this. This isn't a discussion about how well you do in it as nobody is putting that into question - your advice is valuable as an experienced and obviously very skilled player and while it still is anecdotal, it's not something that I would dismiss in the slightest and I don't think anyone would. Your opinion matters but it doesn't instantly mean it's the final authority on the matter. If for nothing else at least because your accuracy is much better than that of the other people here so your results might be better simply due to your own skill. At the end of the day, you could argue that even the difference that he posted makes it better than anything else. And by his own calculations if the time spent firing at a target is shorter then DE becomes more important.

Thanks for the explanation. Some questions for clarification, if I may. How did you calculate the chance of fire per salvo? What does AFC stand for? Fire prev. - is that the mod or the captain skill? Did you take into account that fire prevention and dmg control mod are not on the same scale as DE? i.e. while DE is a flat increase, dmg control mod and fire prevention are percentage increases (e.g. if a ship has 50% fire resistance and uses fire prevention, it will be 0.5 + (0.5*0.07) = 0.535 = 53.5%)

I used to love the Hindenburg but after getting the Des Moines, I have seen the light. The Hindenburg is now my third favourite. So yeah, Des Moines takes top spot for me. I also really like the MK and the Atago.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I would need to know how some of the numbers in that table are calculated.

Moskva - which is heartbreaking as I spent a lot of time grinding up the line (and some doubloons as well). I can't play it. It's big and the citadel on it is huge and it seems to get citadelled from any angle. I swear all the Yamatos on the map start shooting at me the second they see me in it. My stats in it are terrible as well. I just can't play it.

haha, yeah! I always find it hilarious when you pop radar and suddenly you see like 2-3 DDs. It's like shining a torch on cockroaches. They all scurry trying to hide - it's great!

I see your point. It is interesting though that at the top level, DM has the best k/d ratio and the highest average xp. Maybe a lot of DD killing after the introduction of radar? (I am just looking at the top 5% to gauge potential) At least according to this

haha, yeah figured that might be the case - no probs. Yeah, I thought I'd reach out to you guys here as I am nothing if not persistent. (what do I need to do now though?)

Hey, I contacted Gr0pah in game but he must have not seen my message. I am quite interested in joining you guys as I've had some games with some of your members and I really enjoyed it. Cheers, Teob

Not saying he's not right. My experience isn't quite the same though. I will preface this by saying I am obviously nowhere near as good as you guys (to get that out of the way) but while I would agree about the Zao, I am not sure about the Hindi. I've had amazing games where everyone sailed broadside and I've had terrible games where I couldn't find anything to shoot at. What usually happens when I play the Hindenburg is, I get someone's side, I fire off a monster volley, then they turn immediately and obviously start shooting at me. At that point I can switch to a different target or try to break LOS. With the DM, I get like 2 volleys before they even know what's happening. And if they turn I can just switch to HE. The lower concealment helps a lot with that. To me it just seems like the DM is more versatile. That's the reason why the Zao is arguably the best T 10 cruiser - versatility. I will freely admit that it might also be some bias here as I love the DM to bits.

I see. I can see two issues with that though: 1) the Hindenburg and the Des Moines can't really engage things at 17km+. Hindenburg because the range is 17.8 km and DM because of the shell arcs. And while the Moskva can comfortably engage BBs at that range, it's also bloody big and likely to eat dmg. 2) You do usually have two BBs firing at you. I mean I tend to at least. And the dmg is so high that even a couple of shells hitting you at an angle can still do 8k+ and unless you're in a Zao you won't be able to match their DPS while turning/dodging (which usually means that you don't get access to all your turrets). Not saying that you should be able to deal with two BBs shooting at you or that CAs are weak in general but I wouldn't say that overall they dominate BBs. Then again it might just be me. My Hindenburg, while very capable, is in no way a BB hunter. I can stand up to them at range but I would say that overall I am more focused on being sneaky and trying to outplay BBs (hide behind islands, let them get close and then torp rush them etc.) rather than outright dominate them. Different story in my Zao.

To be fair, while I would generally believe without reservations what someone with your stats and experience would say, I am curious on the rationale behind this. I am aware that 1v1 (or even 1vX) a Zao will burn down all the BBs to the waterline if there are no DDs to spot it. Also a DD will make mince meat out of a lone BB without breaking a sweat. However I would have never thought that all CAs dominate BBs. Again not disputing what you are saying but I want to understand where you're coming from here.

The man speaks the truth! (Although I would pick MK as the top tier 8 cruiser simply because it can do everything reasonably well but I think it might be a matter of personal taste) I still don't know how the MK and the Atago both hover around 35k average dmg - that's Murmansk levels!

While I agree with you on the consumables aspect, everything else is just cheap generalisations. Tier 8 at the very least can be profitable even without premium. And I am amazed that you can't see how your own post can be turned on its head easily like "unlike the majority of the epeen ego padding players who are turned on by bashing on new players in mid tiers, I enjoy the more high stakes games where mistakes are punished more severely and you can't be a solo hero" - just as an example of cheap worthless generalizations. Or you could you know, not be a [edited]about it and just let people enjoy what they enjoy without looking down on them. To each his own.

OMG!

Keep in mind that tier X is not just tier X. It's tiers VIII to X. I have never been in a tier X match where more than a half were tier X ships. People play their premiums or are grinding up the lines etc.

I quite enjoy tier X. In fact my favourite ship is the Hindenburg. And I don't really lose money either. On the other hand, I hate lower tiers. I don't really play anything lower than tier 8 (apart from the occasional Warspite match) and when I was grinding up the soviet cruiser line, I didn't enjoy it until I hit tier 7 and especially tier 8. I do think it's a different playstyle compared to lower tiers - some people adapt to it and like it, others don't. Different strokes for different folks.

Koni and Nurnberg have the exact same guns. Nurnberg has better RoF. You don't get citadelled if you angle most of the time. The only big difference I can see between your stats in those ships and mine is that you seem to die a lot more than me in the Nurnberg. You've only survived 19% of your matches which is lower than the server average. However your win rate is still 62% so I don't quite see the problem. Yes your dmg has gone down a bit but it's not the end of the world. Your performance in the koni trumps mine by quite a bit though so you definitely can play - you just need to adjust your play style a bit most likely. The other thing to keep in mind is that there's quite a big power jump from tier 7 to tier 8 (the maximum tiers that you can be pitted against in the koni and nurn respectively). Not only ship wise but also because people play a lot of tier 8 premiums so you'll potentially run into players with a great deal more experience.