AnotherDuck

Yeah, comparing it with CVs is a good idea. Most people agree that CVs aren't balanced, and that something drastic needs to be done about them. So, if you want to keep on comparing them, something drastic needs to be done about radar. If that's your interpretation, you obviously you don't get it. You just try to talk over with your dipshit "explanation" as if you understand anything you're talking about. Why? Stealth torpedoes work on lower tiers without radars.

So if the enemy DDs play perfectly that means at least half the DDs do their jobs. That's far better than the average BB, so since DDs are overall decently behaved, we should remove radar. And as it is, capping is the number one cause of getting caught by radars, so if you want more DDs to cap, remove radars. You can't tell them to cap while maintaining the tools to blow them out of the water if they do that. Eat cake. Still have cake. Which means that if there are CVs, radars are redundant and should be removed. Just remove radars, and there is no problem. Easy solution. I mean, seriously, the arguments that radars need separate matchmaking and that radars are fine are mutually exclusive. If radars were fine they wouldn't need matchmaking taking them into account. No radar is fine; you just have to develop greater map awareness.

You have your own DDs to help. But now, they're not going to push that far, because they don't want to be caught in a radar. So that's a self-fulfilling problem. The BBs have only ever increased since radar was introduced, which means cruisers have it much harder following their DDs anyway, so another point into radar making the game worse for cruisers, despite alledgedly being a tool for them. So what's left? Kemp rock. Kemp smoke. You even have people whining about how MM should balance the radar ships among the teams, which only proves that it's a much too significant button to press. It's not about the damage radar can do once activated. It's about what the threat of it does. It ruins the game. Imagine if the BBs hadn't increased so much. Then that problem wouldn't have mattered so much. But then you have radar, that scared away DDs which brought forward the BBs, which scared off the CAs, which brought back some of the DDs, but the BBs remain with all their ridiculous buffs.

Point 1: I don't usually have a problem dealing with radar. Point 2: I think radar should be removed from the game because it makes it more boring and overall worse. I've said enough about that elsewhere. When I state those things, people tend to just respond "l2p", as if they can just conveniently ignore point 1 and pretend it doesn't exist. CAs complain about not being able to find DDs. Get radar. BBs complain about citadel hits. Get citadel lowered. DDs complain about radar making it too hard for them. l2p, noob. Everyone gets those buffs that covers their ineptude except DDs, who just have to deal with it and become better.

Unless you're driving a Conqueror, in which case you get about two ships back. In real life, the cost-efficiency of a battleship was questionable. Smaller ships gave better value for the money spent.

The main problem with CVs is that many battles devolve into which CV is better, with very little other ships can do about it. They're just broken, and they don't fit this supposedly team-oriented game as they're currently implemented.

I usually just bring up that DDs in WoWs costs as much as BBs. Gotta get something for that pricetag, ne?

No, I just look down on those who fire one last shot and then try to take the moral high ground.

Are you capable of accusing someone of something you're not doing yourself?

I'd like a Swedish tree. With or without other Scandinavian or Baltic countries involved. There are some interesting ships there, like an aviation cruiser (Gotland), and the coastal defence ships (which essentially were small battleships designed down to work in shallow waters).

Missouri GET!

That's a lot of words for something as intelligently thought out and as constructive as, "no u". I mean, you first claim what you say is in humour, but then you refuse to assume that someone else might also respond in humour. But that's against you, so it's obviously just whining. Now, who should get over themselves here? (Hint: It's you.)

So you whine at someone in a large battleship when you're in an agile cruiser and you got in his way, and you somehow think you didn't deserve that report? Why is it that almost every time someone whines about being chat banned, they're exactly the kind of people who deserve to get chat banned?

Remove all radars for a better game.

I'm going for Missouri as well, and I'm pretty much there (only 15k left). Only thing I've ever bought with money was to round up a few more doubloons for the Bismarck premium camo (I already had most of it from various rewards). If you do want to try to grind her, just use your highest tier ships you do reasonably well in consistently and stack on all XP and free XP flags you have, along with camo. If you've got doubloons or want to pay money, buying premium time for your grind days isn't bad at all (that's also going to give you a good credit boost), and as mentioned, you can always convert elite XP. Whether all that is worth it is up to you. Everyone have different limits for acceptable costs, both time and money. Personally, the main reason I'm going for her is that I don't have any USN BBs (or CAs, for that matter), so compared to the replacement (I'm only some 40k XP away from Yamato), I'm actually getting something new and unique from my point of view, and I don't have any USN premiums other than Smith, but I do have all DDs except for Gearing (which I've got researched).

https://wows-numbers.com/

So there's that mission to get 90k damage with ship torpedoes. Challenge accepted! What to pick, but Shimakaze? All that damage, and was that enough to carry the team to victory? Well, yes, but barely. Our other Shima, the only other surviving allied ship against five enemies, managed to finally score a hit (after many failed by me) and sink him, securing the win by points. Replay: https://replayswows.com/replay/13893

Yeah, I was aiming for the battleship behind you, who decided to leg it, like any proper battleship. Never had a good game in Mogami today. Met some other people as well. Saw @Aerroon in the Misery. I had one of the worst Shima games there, with everything missing. Was on the opposite side of the map from him, so no contact. Met @Tyrendian89 in a Hindenburg on my team, I think it was. He farmed the western part of North for an impressive damage, I assume. I was in Yuugumo stealing a few caps and outspotting an enemy German DD at several of them. Met @deadly_if_swallowed in a Benson on Tears of the Cruisers. I think we wrecked pretty well together. I'm pretty sure there was at least one more person. Lots of forumites today.

Which doesn't work if you want to reward teamplay. Tanking damage means someone else will take less damage, so most of the "living to fight on" reward is given to the players you're tanking for, while you get nothing.

Met @Leo_Apollo11 on Neighbours, standard battle. "Standard" in this case meant I had the standard potato teammates that couldn't find a barn from the inside with a map, compass, and guide. Ended up at the top with 50% more xp than the second. I really don't like Queen Elizabeth. It's like Orion. I mean, exactly like Orion, but two tiers higher. You take pen damage from everything, so you can't actually play it like a real battleship, since that means you'll bleed all health far quicker than you can heal twice. The AP is also really weird, since it doesn't work on anything other than broadside battleships. I've never gotten a salvo doing more than 5500 damage on a cruiser with AP. On battleships you can easily get 12k damage salvos, though. The AA is quite good, though, and the HE is a little weaker relative to the prior two ships, but still okay.

y u hating on me? y u say i no importante? y u so maen?= Fighting in bottom tier every time isn't fun. However, that's somewhat unlikely to happen. In my experience (which may or may not be representative of overall experience) you get into all three possible tiers (for relevant tiers, naturally) in roughly equal amounts. A few months ago, that wasn't the case for me, as most battles were either T7 games or T10 games, regardless of what ship I played. Two CVs is kind of rare, but it happens. It mostly depends on the current missions. I more often see no CVs at all, although they're more common in the mid tiers. Yes, T10 matches are punishing of mistakes, but that's for any ship, including the T10 ones. The comparison with MMOs is irrelevant. Opponents here don't have two times the stats. With skill or luck, you can overcome the differences without too much trouble. You're also more rewarded for less contribution to the team if you're bottom tier.

What is this "duck hunting" everyone is talking about?

So the best way to get spotting experience is to use smoke to actively limit your allies' vision. It might be hard to code, but spotting damage really should depend on the moment of the ally firing the guns, not connecting. Spotting the actual hit does absolutely nothing. Spotting for aiming is the entire idea.

That's really the main lesson to learn with torpedoes. Always try to get as close as you can, and get as good angle as you can. The main thing people do wrong with the longer range torpedoes is the same as with sniping battleships: Just because you can shoot at max range doesn't mean you should. At the same time, you'll get a few extra volleys off with that extra range compared to if you're only firing at optimal range. The radar cruisers you mentioned is one reason to have longer range torpedoes. It's not so much because you'll die if you're spotted, but if you're spotted, people will assume you've fired torpedoes, and you'll likely miss then. Likewise, if you have shorter range torpedoes, you're more likely to accidentally get spotted, which will also ruin any surprise.

I don't think Torpedo Acceleration has that much of an effect in practice, and in many cases it's detrimental, so I don't think it's worth the cost. Trading range for speed is almost fair (you trade more range for less speed). Also having to waste two skill points for that is over the line for me. Skills should be upgrades, not tradeoffs you have to pay for. You give up 20% of range (which is in the interval you often hit, so in practice it's far more), which means a lot of versatility, for at best 8% speed (and less for faster torpedoes; F3s have something like a 6.7% incrase). In my experience, I didn't notice that extra speed. I did notice how much more seldom I could fire the torpedoes, and how much more I had to risk to even do so in the first place. Mind you, I regularly go to just outside detection range and fire from there, but there's not always an opportunity for it, or a risk worth taking. With shorter ranged torpedoes, you have to fire at the closest ship, or you're too close and will be spotted. With longer range, you have a much wider selection of targets at any given time, as well as a much higher chance of hitting multiple ships with the same salvo.