Aotearas

Like mentioned in my pervious post, my captain finished retraining for the Yue Yang: That's the second game I had in her (first one was also a pretty nice carry with 2k base XP, but I forgot to take screenshots). My first impression is that I like this ship a lot. Though like with all previous PA DDs I sometimes sorely miss the ability to hit DDs with my DWT, that's made up with the much improved consistency of landing hits on the other classes. And with the Yue Yang I already have plenty enough firepower with the main batteries anyway. Now the only tier X DD that I don't have in port is the Shimakaze ... and though I already unlocked her, it'll stay that way until those stupid 20km torpedoes are the the default loadout. Not going to waste free XP just to get decent torpedoes on a torpedoboat.

As usual I warm up with a couple low-tier games. This was my first game of the day. Just Giulio stuff. Retraining my Yue Yang captain: That game ended up surprisingly close. We only won because we had more ships in the enemy cap despite the enemy DD having been the first to reach ours. Also once again I'm being reminded how little damage the Lo Yang torps deal. Hit the Alsace with 6 torps for only 38k damage ... The game did give enough captain XP to finish the retraining for the Yue Yang too, so doubly successfull!

Several points here that I'll adress in order: You are entirely correct here (and I didn't refute that in any of my statements). And that is a valid position to take. It's also a valid critique of the ship in hindsight. However at the time of when the ship was being designed, with the intelligence they had at that time that motivated them to design the ship, torpedo-protection was a low-priority since the ships the Alaska was designed to fight weren't believed to be equipping torpedoes and the USN in general didn't consider torpedo armement on cruisers to be a signifcant threat. Ergo as far as the mission profile for the Alaska goes, they believed no torpedo-protection was needed. My answer was that the people in charge of the design, not me, thought the ship was solid enough. Which is why they ultimately decided to build the ship and accept it into service. And you have a valid point there, however that wasn't a high-priority for the people in charge at the time. Yes I agree. That is a question best aimed at piritskenyer since he was the one who made the original argument to that end. What I can say from my own personal opinion is that whilst I agree that the Alaska ultimately was a fundamentally flawed design with many shortcomings and an eggregiously uneconomical ship, I do make the concession that at the time of its conception and construction, the USN thought they needed a ship just like that. I can't know if it would've been effective in its role had the IJN built their own big cruisers, but from a theoretical point of view regarding the continued arms-race in naval engineering, the ship design makes sense. And as for the Alaska as a ship in World of Warships, I think she would make an interesting addition to the game. Her flaws like the non-existent torpedo-protection and poor manouverability even provide convenient ways to balance her. Hopefully that adressed most pressing issues.

And the people who decided to build those thought they'd do the things those ships were designed to do. Doesn't mean reality conformed to what those people thought, it just means they had enough confidence in their designs to spend the money. At this point I have to question if English is your native language because your constant lack of understanding of what I'm saying even after multiple repetitions and explanations ... I don't have to quote them. The evidence for the Alaska having been judged servicable is the fact that the construction was approved, financed and completed. If no one thought it would've been a good ship, no one would've wasted the money. Ergo, since the Alaska was built that also means that a sifficient number of people who were involved in the final decision as to the Alaska's fate were satisfied. That really shouldn't be hard to understand. The "source" I'm referring to is verifiable history. The Alaska existed as a ship. Ultimately, someone when asked "should we build this Alaska ship" said "yes".

I don't have to quote them. The fact the Alaska was built is evidence enough. Obviously enough people agreed that the Alaska was good enough to build. Doesn't mean everyone thought so, but enough of those that made the final decision did. It's really that easy. The Alaska got built and it certainly wasn't because some random person found the blueprints and decided to spend a fortune without any informations.

Aaaaaand you just proved you didn't understood what I wrote. Here, I'll help: I highlighted the important part. Because apparently you have trouble distinguishing my personal opinion from what other people thought was servicable. Now secondly, and I need you to pay very close attention to this one, since when does official adoption of anything for its automatically means that it's any good at it? That's a rhetoric question by the way. Because the answer is no, nothing ever qualifies for being an actually successful design just because it was adopted, nevermind that needs for applications adjust over time and so do the tools. So as answer to your question: I never said any adopted weapon was successful, nor did I imply that being officially adopted is a seal of quality of some sort. What I did say is that the people on the design board in charge of the Alaska project judged it satisfactory (exchange that with whatever adjective you wish, be that excellent, solid or whatnot) for its intended purpose and subsequently built the ship. I did say the Alaska eventually turned out to be pointless, because the intelligence upon which the entire design considerations for the Alaska were based on turned out to be inaccurate. Did I make myself clear enough now?

So? Now once again tell me where I said that I (as in me) think that any officially accepted weapon in history was solid enough. And I'll just ignore your precious ad hominem about my mental state of being, a.k.a. "nuts".

Oh? Do tell me where I said that every officially accepted weapon in history was excellent? I'll even give you a handicap: tell me where I said that ANY officially accepted weapon in history was excellent. Just in case you didn't actually understand what I said (as opposed to what you seem to want to understand given your ongoing misrepresentation of arguments): The design was completed, build, bought and subsequently employed. Whatever grievances there were during its various design iterations were solved to the design boards satisfaction. Because with what informations they had at the time, the ship would do exactly what they wanted it to do, in the circumstances they foresaw they would use it. According to that judgement, the Alaska was perfectly serviceable. The fact that it eventually turned out to be a dud because the intelligence was incorrect and the mission it was intended for never would've realized has literally ZERO relevance to the design practicality as it was projected. Because (and maybe you really need this emphasized) projections and reality don't always end up the same thing. It didn't with the Alaska. The Alaska turned out to be utterly pointless, a waste. The Japanese didn't build the big cruisers she was intended to fight. If they had and the US intelligence were accurate, history and hindsight would very probably not be criticizing the Alaska as harshly. Oh look and again you're conveniently ignoring the actual argument he presents in that same comment. Oh, and as for ad hominems: That was part of your response to my comment. You're a hypocrite.

Only problem is that your Karma rises and drops largely arbitrarily based on the other players' whims. Not exactly the most sound of screening process.

Yeah, I'm going to say lolno here. BB AP on DD issue surfaced not because people somehow got better at aiming. It surfaced because the BB heavy meta simply created so many more instances of it happening that it garnered special attention. And the camping has nothing to do with people aiming better. People camped hard long before and there's a plethora of excuses you could shake a stick at.

And did any of those people prevent those "serious" flaws? How many of those people you mentioned were pointing out those flaws as the design was being evaluated rather than post facto? How many of them were on the design board? The design got build and that's the end of it. The ship was purpose build, the design board evaluated it would do its intended job and the Navy bought it. According to the people who had a say in its construction, the ship was evidently plenty solid enough. That's the fact. If you want to argue against that, be my guest. Congratulations, you just defined hindsight. So, when will you go and make the actual counterargument to refute his argument? As for piritskenyer not having provided any counterarguments and supposedly only going "I'm going to ignore this" ... way to be a hypocrite mate. You going to continue ignoring his actual counterargument? Just in case you didn't read it (since you'd need to scroll down a bit following the single sentence you quoted from his response): There's you're counterargument. Now then, go on ...

Besically a "No" to everything. Even though the various CCs do a decent if not amazing job at providing heaps of informations, tips and advices, none of that will ever reach a newbie unless she explicitly searches for it.

You know, if your intelligence and mission design at that time says that 20mm frontal armour is enough even on a tank the size of a Sd.Kfz. 182, then the design isn't flawed. It's build to specifications and if those are met, the design does exactly what's meant to do. Period. If you have a problem with lacking protection systems or main armament based on what YOU think is necessary/adequate for a ship of its displacement, then the only answer you need to know is that YOU weren't on the design board. Those who were however thought it was perfectly fine according to the intelligence informations they had and how the navy planned to use it. Like piritskenyer said, they build it how they build it because they thought that's what they needed to built. Why they didn't bother putting a good torpedo protection system on it, we don't know. In all likelyhood because they had budget limits and a ship of that size was probably already stretching that budget thin as it were. Still they decided to give it the go so obviously they were satisfied enough.

Just had @soulmask on the same team. The match itself was ... interesting.

Cuz muh turret traverse! Mkay, just found where I saw it the first time (this one has the 324mm torps adapted for WoWs): Link to the reddit thread (also has a couple other proposals).

I know! I just really, really, REALLY want an 8" mainbattery destroyer. Just think of the fun you could have. Compared to the Fletcher, you'd have slightly lower DPM and significantly less torpedo potential, but being able to pound everything under the sun with rapid firing 8" guns would absolutely make up for it.

Would probably fit best as tier IX free XP ship (mostly because I think a DD with 3x1 12rpm 8" guns would be a tad too much to face as a tier VI ship). Also, though the actual test loadout only replaced the front 5" gun, ingame I'd obviously want all three turrets to be the 8" MCLWGs. Though to make the ship work in WoWs it would be a mish-mash of different versions anyway (due to the major technology shift these ships went through from just post-WW2 into the missile era, etc.). Torpedo armament would be pre-refit 1x4 533mm (no use for the 324mm anti-submarine torps). AA would be the original 76mm guns.

- USS Hull (DD-945) with the MCLWG mainbattery configuration - IJN Agano - HMS Dido (37) - Seydlitz in CL variant (4x3 150mm main battery) - Battle-class destroyer, if a name were needed then HMS Barfleur (D80) because she's the only Battle-class destroyer (1942 design) that served during WW2 Far from the only ships I have in mind, but those would be the ones that I'm most interested in to play with at this moment.

Still hunting for the Cruiser Commander Elite Forces emblem: With the help of a forumite @EdiJo and incredibly passive enemy BBs we managed to swing that match around even though we had an initial disadvantage in caps. It very much helped that the enemy BBs were passive as hell. But eh, as long as they're in range and not too angled, my Minotaur is fine with that. And then this absolute nailbiter! That match was bloody intense. We were actually on the losing side of the game for a good part of the match, but we managed to grind them down, swing the powerbalance in our favour and then take back the caps until we finally swung the game around in the closing two minutes. A very enjoyable game and definately hardfought. The best kind of games (and being victorious is just the icing on the cake)! And it just so happened that this game in my Zao was also the last victory I needed in a tier X cruiser to get muh shiny:

I know this is a bit of a recurring theme on this thread, but ... *sigh* AFK CV, three quarters of the team just sink without doing much of note, one New Mexico sailing all the way along the A and then 1 line and the Fusou beached himself on an island not far from spawn and basically sat there the entire game. By the end of the game, I had to gun down two Leanders in my Kamikaze and couldn't even use my smoke because I was the only one spotting those, all whilst being perma-spotted by the enemy CV (who had free reign all game long, since ours was AFK as mentioned). End the game with Kraken, Confederate, High Caliber, 147k damage and 1,5k base XP ... highest base XP on the winning team was ~1,4k. Thankfully @Reaper_JackGBR provided salvation with a division invite for the remaining games.

Had the pleasure of sailing with @EdiJo on the same team. Though it took me an embarrassing amount of time until I actually noticed it ... in my defence, it was a busy match.

Should've used the premium version, duh.

You know, whenever I'm at Gamescom I typically spend at least two hours walking through the merchandise sections, checking out the figurine stalls. I have been sorely tempted a couple times, though sadly (or thankfully as my wallet would say) I basically have nowhere to put them ... 'tis sad.

Our windowlicker division had the pleasure of getting @_GrimLock__ on the same team. Good thing too since it finally broke today's curse of not being able to get a win in my Zao!

Brought my low tier DDs out again since I figured lots of Texans to farm. First game did have a lot of them indeed, but the game was nothing special. The second time I went on the prowl though ... OM NOM NOM!!! No Texas on the enemy team, but I'll gleefully nuke other BBs just the same. It's amazing how they just continued sailing in straight lines despite the fact that a DD was so obviously stalking their whole group (guess where ...) and at the very latest they should've wisened up to the fact after I blew their King George ot of the water. Instead Error 404: WASD not found. Shame that flooding RNG denied my Kraken. Had forced the New Mexico DCP with earlier torps and then landed another two, but no flooding with those *grmbl* ...