fumtu

It was not accessible for a limited time, it was available in store for quite some time before it was removed from it. It was also only available for money, either directly or from Christmas boxes. Are you suggesting that only skilled players have money to buy premium ship? Because I don't see any other reason why owners of the Enterprise should be "better skilled than the average CV player". IMO if ship is considered to strong to be pulled from Store/Armoury, it should be removed from competitive gameplay.

I agree. If you succeed to dodge torps, you should not get killed because one of them pass to close. We don't need suck mechanic in the game. There is plenty of other ways to buff German DDs without creating some new wacky gimmick which would basically make miss a hit.

Sorry but no. If someone succeeded to avoid torps he should not be given "middle finger" in the form of torpedo that explode on proximity. How you will even determine if torpedo is too close? Just by eye? We don't have any indication how far torpedo is from the ship, except visual one, so if you give a trigger 5m or 10m or even more of activation range, how will someone know that he is in that range or not. And with all this desync we have situation would be even worse. So no, I'm not against buffing German DDs but there is plenty of other "regular" ways to do it. Increase reload, increase AP pen, increase torpedo range, torpedo speed, torpedo damage or any combination of those. Inventing another obscure mechanic is not the way. Imagine if they give this mechanic to some other nation, for example to Soviet DD torps, would you be pissed if you successfully dodge torps only to be blow up because one of them pass to close? Would you call it BS and criticize WG for implementing such stupid mechanic and call Soviet bias? I know I would.

Why do I have feeling that this thread is going in the weird direction.

People which are boycotting cbs due CVs are not asking for complete removal of CVs but not including them in their current state. They proposed number of changes yet WG completely ignored their feedback and pushing with another season with unchanged CVs. Venezia is much less issue then CV, Venezia would not be this popular if there is not CV present. Forcing players to play DD with CV in the game would be horrible thing. And just the fact that you need to force one class in the game just because presence of the another class makes it irrelevant is sign of bad design.

Well not all of them said that they will boycott this season. I can only say that CR33D won't take part in it.

I wouldn't be sure about that. Apparently Impero was a test ship for AL Littorio but seems like, in the end, WG went with just reskinned Roma. What will happen to Impero is now unknown. Maybe it will be released as premium ship or maybe it will be used as test ship for future Italian BB line, we can only speculate. But I wouldn't count on it getting out any time soon if at all.

Opinion? Sure, whatever you say

WT ... it never came to the point where "almost no merchants came through" and "happy" time were not happened because "virtually no enemy had ASDIC/Sonar" but because Allies didn't have enough escort ships or could not provide air cover and, even more, because a lot of ships were sailing outside convoys. Majority of sunk merchant ship, by far, were sunk because they were not sailing in convoys or were convoy struggles and were completely unprotected. Convoy system was quite effective vs submarines. Sure, U boats did sunk lot of ships and did make some war leader very worried but it never get that close that u boat war could actually win the war for Germany.

WG gives some DDs consumable named "Hydroacoustic Search" which include any device for detection submarines and torpedoes. And both Sonar and ASDIC were known and widely used even before ww2. Also "U boats were threatning to win WWII all by themselves"? What kind of books are you reading? Goalkeeper entered service in 1979, Phalanx in 1980 and Kashtan in 1989. That is way after the time period covered in this game. One of the very few ships, if only one, in game that received Phalanx CIWS is Iowa class, and event they received them because they were BBs and they belonged to US Navy. Rest of the ships would probably not even been in service long enough to receive them, or would be deemed to old to get them, as majority of them would be decommissioned by that time. Also do you know what else Iowa class received together with Phalanx? Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles. So .... Iowa ultimate ship when?

They are not. Neustrashimy never had them. It was supposed to be on line which would lead to Kotlin class and, probably, Kildin class at T10, which was the only one of them which would have missiles. Grozovoy was not part of that subbranch.

No I didn't but CV sh*t on everything so I usually don't mention them. Does Kitakami has 50mm deck armour?

You are right, R-10 only has AP and HE, no SAP. https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/supertest-soviet-freemium-tier-x-destroyer-r-10/

Unlike Kuma, Kitakami has 16mm bow armour which means only HIV and above will be able to overmatch it. Also even tho basically complete central part of the ship is one giant citadel, at T10 this could result in more overpens then actual citadels, just like Smolensk. Yes, in theory it is very fragile and vulnerable but in practice this might not be as straight forward. It will be very vulnerable to DDs of any kind while ships with high velocity guns could struggle to get anything but overpens.

So just like (initial) Smolensk, Slava will be balanced according to spreadshit by all potatoes playing it. Typical WG

This. 20 torps per side is a huge damage potential but hull is total garbage. Whole middle section of the ship is one giant citadel, from deck to the keel, 4 guns of which only three could be used at the same time, basically even T5/T6 DDs would not have much issues to deal with Kitakami. I don't see how this ship could be balanced without either making it complete trash or OP. In this state, no matter how 40 torpedo wall (actually 20 and then 20 as it need time to turn) looks attractive to average players, with such a fragile hull they would probably fail miserably to do anything.

I disagree. I don't see any point of making their bow more then 32mm and even less about making their superstructure, as you suggested earlier, 32mm. To just show you one problem that would create, if someone in Friesland needs to kill it, it can't do any damage to it, anywhere, unless it is by fire, which is RNG dependent. There is a reason why superstructures have so little armour. Ship could still have great armour scheme even with usual stuff like 32mm bow or 19mm superstructure, making ships resistant to everything is not what this game need.

True, but it matter more what we get in the end then from where we start. I agree that these BBs, at least on paper, look underwhelming but I doubt that they will stay this way.

Let me give you example of another DevBlog As you can see for armour value it only give 25mm. It don't mention that only upper part of bow and stern are 25mm, it don't mention 50mm icebreaker or 50mm upper belt or 50mm central deck which we now know that Petro has. Devblog only give armour values for bow and stearn (or at least part of it). So 32mm for US BBs means that their bow and stern is 32mm which is standard BB armour values of those parts for those tiers. Now, rest of armour could be 32mm but as easily could not. Thing is we don't know until we get more info. So how about first wait for more info about rest of those BBs armour and then asking for changes if there is any need for them.

T9 Minnesota looks like beefed California with 406mm guns. It is not one of Tillman's designs, my guess is that either WG just scaled up a little California/WeVe or they used as a base one of proposals for "fast battleship" from 1918, which followed initial South Dakota class design. It should be armed with 4x3 406mm guns, with displacement between, based on variant, 47k and 55k tons and speed between 25kn and 30kn. WG could use one of those designs and refited WeVe as a base for Minnesota. One of the probable designs used as a base for it could be this one: It resemble South Dakota class but this ship is loner and had better protection. T10 Vermont is definitely based on Tillman design, with triple smoke stacks and all guns on the same deck. I not sure which one of those but my guess would be either Tillman 1 or Tillman 2, with 18inch guns instead of 16inch guns. Both these should have displacement of 70k tons. It could be also a Tillman 4 design which is similar to previous two, just bigger, with displacement of 80k tons. Considering initial stats keep in mind that all stats, even that 40sec reload for T10, are all very WiP and that Devblogs only give armour values for bow and stern, which are standard 32mm of armour. They might but they also might not had 32mm all around. If they got standard US 38mm central deck, they could be quite resistant to HE spam. To me, even tho I'm not a BB player they look as interesting concept, with lot of issues but also potential. Considering how slow are those ships, they will have serious issue with torps, which are quite, some even ridiculously, fast at high tiers. And they would have serious issue with disengagement, again due slow speed. Gun-wise they seems more like shotguns like Lyon and Fuso. On the other side seems like 457mm is become more standard at T10 then exception. RIP 30mm cruiser deck which with all these new additions, now seems quite pointless.

Yup, those thick ships could only be American

Vermont seems like modernized Tillman 4 design but with triple 18inch instead quad 16inch guns. Those triple stacks suggest one of Tillman proposals

Florida is probably based on preliminary for NC with 14 inch guns.

It is definitely a split not a new line