fumtu

So? There is zero RN T9 premiums, Pan Asians have zero T9 or T10 premiums, Germans don't have a single T10 premiums .... There will be more ships in those tiers in time but don't expect for WG to replace them as soon as they pool one out. Especially if there is lot of other premiums for some nation and US definitely has lot of premiums, and will get more in the future. As I mentioned, Austing will be released the next patch and Constellation in already announced.

Sometimes I really wonder what some people are saying. On my comment that there is still an US premium ships for Coal, you answered by mentioning T9 without any reference that you are talking about Alaska or Georgia. First T9 is a great tier for credit earning as T9 premiums earn more money than any other tier. Second WG could, and probably will, eventually bring new T9 US premium but they are not obligated to do that immediately as there is both a tone of US premiums in the game still available and there are still some US premiums available for in game resources like, several times already mentioned, Salem and Ohio. If you don't like or don't want those ships that is your problem.

T9? Both ships I mentioned are T10.

Salem? You can also get Ohio for earnable in game resources

Don't forget Kidd, Wichita, Anchorage, Florida, California, Sims or bunch of lower tier US ships, not to mention Austin which if coming the next patch or already announced Constellation. There is plenty of US premiums to choose from.

Well if you have a lot of money, you know like really lot of money, like a sh*t tone of money and you don't know on what to spend it and you really like this game, you know like really fricking love it .... I would still suggest you to waste your money on something else instead of Lepanto or V. Veneto.

Did we really needed a new Belfast? I mean lot of people wanted the Belfast but the old "new" one, you know the one that is currently sitting on the Themes in London. Do we need another French T8 BB (looking at Flandre), or another US T8 BB (looking at Constellation) or another German T7 CL (looking at Wiemar) ... If you create a poll with that question I think you would be quite surprised with results, especially now that WG has announced removing T7 Nelson as purchasable ship. Is it a real ship? A famous one? You can bet that people will say that we need it in the game, no matter which tier. Refitted Nelson at T8? Yes please.

Again gun layout doesn't need to be limiting factor for a ship. It is not gun layout fault that Elbing has such poor DPM or maneuverability. Yes it could be disadvantage sometimes just like it could also be quite an advantage in some situation. For example if Druid is trying to run away he could either deal zero damage or it would need to show more broadside just to bring its guns to engage. So Druid could have quite and issues if it get chased unlike Elbing who could still use 2/3 of its guns and keep angled. All depends on situation.

Elbing is not a ship invented by WG, it is based on the real design, unlike the Druid which is basically a WG creation based on several other proposals but never in this form. You can't do much about Elbing gun layout because that would not represent its basic design anymore. WG could make it much better despite gun layout it they have any idea how to do it. So blaming a gun layout for current Elbing state is completely wrong, just like someone claiming that Druid is better just because it has 5m/s better shell velocity. BTW Elbing gun angles are not that bad

Don't hope too much for that. Even if WG decide to give another ships bellow T9 for FXP, very slim chance IMO, it would be more expensive then 300-400 FXP.

Of those DDs, I have T-61 and it is a great ships, probably the best T6 DD. I'm going to buy Haida and probably say goodbye to the Z-39. Not that Z-39 is bad ships but between it and Haida I'm choosing a Haida as she is a great ships and I'm quite a sucker for RN, and Commonwealth, DDs especially Tribals.

14.1km of Druid to 13.3km of Elbing 965m/s of Druid to 960m/s of Elbing Sure, technically Druid is better in both but do you really think that 5m/s better shell velocity means much? Both DDs have improved pen angles on AP, Druid don't have HE at all but it will probably have better fuse time on its AP. We don't know yet how good pen values od Druid 127mm guns would be but Elbing AP pen values are pretty good. Also there is only 800m difference in the range (currently). And what the hell "specialised" means especially if you comparing Elbing to Druid? Are you suggesting that Druid is a "normal" DD? Problem with Elbing is not in its shells velocity but in many other things, like horrible DPM, poor maneuverability, shi*y consumables .... But if you are thinking that 5m/s worse shell velocity than Druid is the worst thing than maybe Elbing will not be that bad after all. I mean what else matters on the DD, right?

Is it tho? So how come there are so many people have such horrible stats? I guess there is a lot of broke people in the game.

You buy a new 6pt captain for credits, dismiss him and convert part of his XP to Elite XP, rinse and repeat. Not sure if you can buy 10 pts captain for credits. Not the most efficient way, but if you have a lot of credits and nothing to spend it then why not.

Try to not take it too hard. I started Silver league with defeat, only to win all the games till I reached R4. And there shi(t) hit the fan. Yesterday I played some 20 to 30 games just to end day at R3. Today started in similar fashion but it did end with 6 wins in the row for R1. With all the players I have met during this session of the season I really wonder how humans got to the top of the food chain on this planet.

On Wednesday America discovers Cristoforo Colombo

Well not all CCs considered Belfast OP then. Look at the Notser or iChase videos from that time, both considered it strong but not OP. Sure they changed their mind later, mostly after first next T7 ranked season, but then it was already too late. So even among CCs there could be quite a difference in the perception how strong some ships is. And of course there is always a bias toward some ships. IMO, WG wasted a good chance when they decided to rebalance those most broken one, like Belfast, CG or Kami. If they started by Belfast and decided to be a little more generous they could get more positive feedback. But they decided to start with CG just moving it on T6 without any buffs, without any attempt to even discus any possible compensations for existing owners. It didn't help that GC didn't look great at T6 so whole idea was scrapped after a lot of negative feedback. I doubt WG will try anything like that any time soon.

Those are just initial stats, lot of things could and probably will change. Sure it might end OP in the end but it also might not. Still adding another OP ship in the just because this or that nation has one is never a good thing. How about ... Giulio Cesare? One of those ultimate OP ships. Also so far Napoli doesn't look bad.

Another good game in Petro in Ranked Even met our good old Beastofwar, surprisingly he wasn't in the CV this time.

Some gems from otherwise a horrible day in ranked

They were marketed as tanky vs HE spammers due superheal and, at least T10, deck armour that could not be panned by 8inch HE shells or 6inch shells with IFHE. They are not tanky vs BBs.

It is not a Battle class converted to the "anti-air picket ship" (I guess you meant radar picket). Druid is not a real ship, it could be based on some possible Battle class modification or on some completely different proposal or just pure WG imagination.

On the image I posted is artist impression of the cruiser destroyer project from 1953 with caption Artist conception of 1953 Cruiser Design with two bow 5"/62 (12.7 cm) twin mountings. The hull openings are said to have been the result of erroneous information given to the artist. Painting by Peter Hogan. So those are twin mountings not singles, even tho there were design for both single and twin mounts. Yes, those mountings were quite big and heavy and that is why i think that WG used 5"/56 (12.7 cm) QF Mark N2 instead Based upon a Vickers design for a land anti-aircraft gun, this navalized version was essentially a shorter and thus lighter version of the Mark N1. This gun was to be used in both single and twin mountings. Data on this weapon is sparse, but the single mounting would have weighed about 55 tons (56 mt) while the twin would have been about 92 tons (93 mt). Both mountings had a maximum elevation of 90 degrees. Cyclic rate of fire for this version was reduced to 40 rpm, apparently as part of the effort to reduce the mounting weight. Even this lower rate of fire was sustainable for only the first minute, subsequent firing was limited to no more than 10 rounds per minute in order to extend barrel life. Shell weight was set at 58 lbs. (26.3 kg) and muzzle velocity at 3,200 fps (975 mps). WG could easily use this concept to create their own version of the mounts for DDs I couldn't find any design how this mounts should look.

Probably it is based on Battle class. I guess WG used either 5"/62 (12.7 cm) QF Mark N1 or 5"/56 (12.7 cm) QF Mark N2, both were experimental guns and both were canceled. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_51-50_mk1.php If there are really guns used on Druid, Ship would probably needed to be somewhat bigger as those guns were two times heavier than those used on Daring. But for WG that would mean nothing.

Druid is not a Daring class, WG just reused a name as this is a paper ships. If I'm not wrong Druid was based on one of the proposals for one of the South American countries.