fumtu

Both could be fun but just because Seattle is T9 in CL branch I would prefer CAs. But I still love both Cleveland and Helena as both are great ships even tho IMO DM is way better T10 then Wooster.

Keeping three Perths in one smoke puff will be almost impossibly, they basically needs to hug one another, they would impend one others shooting, they all can move only at 1/4 speed which means, unlike Italian cruisers, it would not be that hard to hit one of them by just torping the smoke as their smoke area is quite limited and, due moving at very slow speed and they are all quite close to each other, they would have much harder time to avoid torps. And they would be vulnerable to blind fire as there are three cruisers in one smoke puff. Keeping two Perths, effectively, in the same smoke would be quite challenging, three near impossible.

My guess would be either Italian BBs or USN BBs or DDs sub-branch.

I'm not saying that WG should not add them to the game. I just pointing a serious issues with implementing them as hybrid ships. Maybe WG will find the way to make it work but currently I don't see how this could be implemented to the game and be effective and balanced at the same time.

How will you balance hybrids. You can't balance them as a proper ship as they would also have plane strike capabilities, and you can't balance them as carriers as they are not one. Gun wise, if you balance it to be on par with its counterparts on the same tier, because of having additional strike potential with planes, it would, potentially, be better then them, especially if top tier. But if you compensate having planes by reducing gun performance, it would be underpowered if you can't make her planes work. This would be particularity noticeable if it is bottom tier. So you end with a ship that it is neither proper BB or proper carrier and if you can't make one of its components work it would underperform.

Bigger caliber doesn't necessary mean better AP penetration. In Bogatyr case, 130mm guns have both better AP pen and better ballistics than 152mm guns as you can see on the graph So yes, it is worth upgrading guns. You can demaount upgrades. If you hover over upgrade you mounted there should be button for demounting.

And Lazo is fun ship. Tone would bring usable 10km torps and 203mm guns, all forward, so I would still be different enough and could be interesting.

Adding heal to mid tier ships, no matter in what form, would still require extensive rebalancing of many ships on those tiers and it would impact balance between those tiers which have and don't have heals. Mid tier ships which currently have heals usually sacrifice something for it, adding heal to their counterparts will create balance issues for those ship, which would require buffs, which on the other hand would require buffs to some other ships and so and so.... Pan European DDs for example have heal but they also have the smallest HP pool among all DDs and no smoke. If you give heal to all other DD, which would especially benefit German and French DDs because they have the largest HP pool in first place, they would need something more just to be viable in that situation. Kidd is the best example how heal could impact balance. Originally Kidd didn't have a heal and was quite mediocre if not a bad ship, outclasses by Benson in every way but AA. WG just added a heal and suddenly Kidd become quite good ship but still leaving Benson as viable choice. If you add heal to Benson than what would be point of Kidd again. I'm not against idea but it would require so much changes that I doubt WG will do that, at least not in foreseeable future if at all.

Just because Slava was so famous battleships, with such significant history, just like Smolensk. This popularity among players would not have anything with reputation these ships have in the game.

What an amazing concept, such high octane gameplay. Considering that if everything goes as planed we would soon-ish get two more ships with the same playstyle, Slava and Borodino, future games in WoWs will be so awesome. Well done WG, well done indeed.

Well guess what? The biggest map in WoWs is 48x48km. So when someone has 25km range and accurate guns on that range it is not that hard to find someone who is broadsiding to you while not being aware that he is doing that. Sure you deserve to be obliterated on one side of the map by someone who is on the other side of it.

So when it snipes you for two or three citadels from 25km you will lose a little less HP then before. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

Another Smolensk. Stupid ship balanced by players who have no idea how to play it. Nothing to see here, stats say it is ok, tovarich

It is not, WG is still keeping stupid concept and these changes could only make here better fit in their stupid spreadshit projections but as long as they don't change whole concept Slava will be horrible idea.

They similar in weight, 180mm guns weighted 17-17.1 tons with mount weight of 232-243 tons, 152mm guns weighted 17.5 tons with mount weight of 240 tons. Lützow we are talking here is unfinished Hipper class cruiser sold by Germany to USSR in 1940 not Deutschland class.

I'm not saying that it is not, even tho some sources suggested that 152mm guns, same as Chapayev, were more probable choice.

Well read a little about French rule over Algeria or some other colonies, or German over Namibia or Belgium over Kongo or Netherlands over Indonesia or any other European nation over some other nation. I think you will find lot of same resentment among those ruled by their new masters. But by you who cares if that happened 100 years ago. Tough luck I guess. Well Tallinn was used as a name for ex Lutzov, it is a real ship even tho it was never in form we have in game.

What, like nobody lived there or that nobody had sovereignty over those areas and they were just free for European powers to grab them? That makes those names ok because that happened "long before"? What does it matter if they were occupied 100 years before or 2 years before like that makes it different. But let see, Tallinn was under Russian rule from 1710 to 1918, and then under USSR from 1939 till 1991, Riga similarly become part of Russian Empire in 1721. So they are longer under Russian/USSR control then let say Fiji was British colony or Algeria was French one. I mean I can fully understand why people from Estonia and Latvia don't like those names but please don't have double standards just because here we are talking about is Russia while same things is acceptable for other European countries. If those names are not ok, then you can say same for other ones if you want to be correct.

Funny thing, out of 5 regular T8 cruisers which could use radar, four of them could stealth radar with only Cleveland, with second best concealment among those five, not be able to do that.

To be fair, Lutzov, after sold to Soviets did carried name Tallinn for a while so you could say that it did existed with name Tallinn. Riga on the other side did not. Fun fact original name of Admiral Kuznetsov carrier was planed to be Riga but this was changed with time. Well you can say that Pommern is actually reuse of the name from ship that actually existed. I mean all those are just technicalities and you can find both pro or against points for both. During the ww2 all those name could be viable for ships from countries they were part of, either legally or by occupation.

But you can say same for some other ships we have in game. For example is having RN ship with name Fiji or French cruiser Algerie more appropriate? Also there are some other ships in Soviet tree that could be considered controversial like Kiev, Poltava, Minsk or Tashkent and seems like nobody has issue with them.

To be honest many lines have similar problems. From T7 to T10 only one German cruiser is built and only one other existed in plans. From T6 to T10 only one French BB is build, even tho Normandy was in process of building but never finished as BB. Similar for cruisers where T8 to T10 were never build just like Italian cruisers. RN CAs are even worse where none of those from T7 to T10 was build. I understand your point but having "fantasy" ships is nothing new for Soviets. Sure they have by far the most post war designs but that is simply because lines could not be finished without them as there were no suitable ww2 ships. Also there is one more thing you should take into consideration here and that is German invasion of USSR in 1941. Ships like Soyuz, Chapayev or Kronshtadt were in process of building but due situation their building was stopped. Two largest shipbuilding in USSR were both affected by invasion, Leningrad was under siege and Nikolayev occupied by Germans. It is hard to expect some extensive shipbuilding program in that situation. I'm not saying that those ship would be good if they were finished but for game it would be pointless to add ship that is subpar of average ship at the same tier. This is not a simulation after all. They should not be created OP just because they were Soviets but they should also not be considered garbage just because of that. Not all Soviet ships were OP, far from it. Chapayev could hardly be called OP or even to strong at T8, Donskoy is far from being the best at T9. I wouldn't even consider Nevsky OP but it is very strong T10. And none of those three IMO have an unhealthy effects on WoWS. But I agree some of Soviet ships, like Kremlin, Sinop and especially Slava and badly designed and balanced which resulted in them being stronger than their counterparts. What is there to be said that is already not said. ASW consumable in the form of aircraft, both helicopter and plane, is reasonable and could be interesting. Just ASW helicopters not so much as very few ships have modeled helipads (and all of them are T10), for some it could be added but it would require changing models and probably removing portion of AA mounts, and for some it could hardly be added at all. Consumable just for T10s, and maybe few German ships on lower tiers, would be pointless IMO.

1950 version of Chapayev was build, five ship of the class were finished after the war by revisited design

Underperforming? By what? Your stats? Looks like you don't have it so I guess not Stats available to players? According to wows-numbers it is not But of course wows-numbers is not reliable source as it is showing stats from the start of the game and all versions of the ships. So how about we use maplesyrup instead for the last week Again Odin is not underperforming. And just look how sad NC is. By your expectations? Well I doubt WG will buff ship just because of that. It is still too early to know how good Odin stats are as too few people currently is having them. Those who bought start package could get it only during the next week, those who will get it for 3500 doubloons won't get it for almost a month. And even then it will require some time for stats to be less volatile. Will it underperform then? Maybe? But seems like it doesn't underperform now. Also even when stats drop, and I expect for them to drop, in the end it is on WG to decide does it need any improvements. If WG is satisfy that Odin has mediocre performance then they probably not buff just because someone is asking for it. So to answer your question, yes there is always a chance but probably you won't see any buffs in near future, at least not until event is over, more people get Odin and stats become more relevant.