HMS_Kilinowski

I'd happily sell my flags for 250k FXP each to you or anybody. That depends on what you compare. The price policy for coal ships is different from FXP-ship. T9-ships for coal are not half the price of T10-ships for coal. If a player wants to get a T9-ship for coal, that price is 228k coal. So he would in theory have to do the auction 228 / 80 = 2.85 times, paying a total of 600 FXP * 2.85 = 1.71 million FXP for that T9-ship. 1.71M FXP is quite a high price to pay for a T9-ship, considering Groningen costs 1M FXP.

Die Gadjah Mada ist ein Kanonenboot. Mit 10km Torpedo-Reichweite wäre sie ja wohl langsam das Beste aus beiden Welten. Man muss schon die Kirche im Dorf lassen. Das Ding ist eine Jervis ohne Hydro und mit DW-Torp. Sie hat ein etwas langsamerer Ruder, was daran liegt, dass die englischen DDs die Beschleunigungs-Mod frei Haus bekommen und deswegen die Ruderstellzeit als dritte Mod nehmen. Die Gadjah Mada ist immernoch ein sehr wendiger DD. Die Geschütze machen viel dpm. Die Torps reichen 1,9 km über den Tarnwert hinaus. Gemessen an niedrigstufigen Torpedobooten wie Wakatake, ist das reiner Luxus. Die Torps sind nicht übermäßig schnell, aber der Schaden ist verheerend. Sie sind eben eher für BBs gedacht. Da sind die Torps von Sims und Mahan ein Räuspern dagegen. Die Gadjah Mada ist geringfügig durch die etwas längeren Nachladezeit der Torps und das fehlende Hydro eingeschränkt, ist aber dennoch eine sehr potente Mischung. Nicht umsonst ist sie statistisch, nach meiner Erinnerung, einer der top DDs auf Stufe 7. Wenn jemand nach Buffs für einen T7 DD ruft, dann macht das vielleicht bei der Akatsuki oder Mahan mehr Sinn. Selbst die Jervis ist mit nur 7km Torpreichweite bei 6.4km Tarnwert deutlich schwerer zu fahren als die Gadjah Mada. Ich selbst habe erst kürzlich die panasiatischen DDs zurückgesetzt und in Gänze durchgespielt. Die Gadjah Mada ist eines der Sahnestücke dieser Linie. Falls überhaupt ein Schiff aufgewertet werden sollte, wäre das mMn die Hsienyang, die einen Geschützturm gegenüber der Benson einbüßt.

The game is what we make out of it. The steam rolls are not designed by Wargaming, but by some funny consent of the player base. The players agree to make these huge lemming trains against all logic. They have been told for years that lemming trains are useless and still they keep doing it. I keep seeing these funny games where 2/3 of my team go to one flank and there they lose half their ships without killing a single opponent. How is that Wargaming not giving an excrement? If people are not shooting DDs, cause they miss more shells than when they shoot a BB, that has nothing to do with the introduction of submarines. What in that camping meta is given by Wargaming? We had pretty much the same game all over the servers. And yet the different regions had different metas. Some were camping, ignoring the caps and just gunning it out at long-range, other servers saw a lot of yoloing. And others again were somewhere in the middle between the extremes. Is this WG's doing or are there certain cultural influences? Or could it be that new players see this game is in its Cash Cow state. They know this game has already been around for 7 years and probably they missed most of the time. So now they think it will not last that long anymore. As a consequence, stats and winning doesn't mean much for them. They maybe just want to grind as many ships as fast as possible before the game goes down. Personally I just see more and more stupid plays by supposedly not so bright people. I mean ofc, now with ~500 ships this game becomes a card collection game and people start playing it in a fashion that gives them the highest XP/hour. So, start there. Start with the people.

Yes. They are purely for aesthetics. The performance effects (3% better concealment and 4% more dispersion for enemy salvos) were taken away. The 3% concelament buff was internalized into all ships for free. The dispersion debuff was entirely removed, so practically all ships now hit 4% more precise. The economic bonusses of camos have been decomposed to a new feature. You can find them on the top right side of your port in the tabs under the chosen ship.

Well Birte, on behalf of THESO-clan, I dare say: We are sorry for your loss. I remember him posting occasionally in the "to buy or not to buy"-thread. I hope there is computer games up there and he is warming up in tier 13. Eternity sounds like too much time to just play the harp.

The best way to read the map is to "read the map". I mean like when driving a car, you at first are instructed to check the rearviewmirror. You do so consciously. At some point, after consciously checking mirrors for thousands of times, it becomes a habit, something you do unconsciously. Same goes for the map. By looking at it frequently, you get an update on the enemy's positions. The rest is making assumptions as to where the ships are moving, what their intentions will be. Those assumptions are based on your own experiences and plays. You do or should know the favorite camping positions for radar cruisers. You should know e.g. that certain DDs like to flank or prefer open water areas. Also take note of the last known positions of ships. It's all about awareness. If a ship has the same last-known positions for minutes, it hasn't been spotted for a while. Does that mean anything? A brawler last seen going behind a chain of islands might be about to pop out at the end of that chain of islands any moment. I notice especially for inexperienced players, they do not predict the movement of a ship going dark correctly. Say a cruiser has gone dark 3 km from your concealment range going into you, then you gotta expect it to push you. Then it's time to turn and run. Or say there was a BB 10km away from you going towards you and you are going for it and there is an island between you. Then you gotta turn out or expect the BB to pop up in your perma spotting range. Predicting a ships movement is key for a lot of things. Every time you get surprised by an enemy, you gotta ask yourself, was that really not to be expected? Was there no indication of that ship moving to where it surprised you? So: - observe the map by frequently looking at the map - make basic predictions of the ships based on time passing and speed and assumptions on their behavior - guess from what ships are already spotted and where, what yet unseen ships spawned on your flank, what ships they are in division with - determine your approach to the enemy line-up and your support based on these assumptions. Typical example for a Warspite: - You spawn on C cap of Trident map - You see it is a map where usually teams split up to go A- and C-cap. - The friendly DD on your side is a Farragut - A Fuso is spotted by your CV. You check the enemy team and see the Fuso is in division with a Shinonome. So you know the Shinonome will be on your flank and fighting with the Farragut at some point. - You expect the Shinonome to either torp 9-/10-line or go for C-cap. - Your Farragut goes for C-cap. So you stay away from 9-/10-line, where you'd eat torps at best. - You turn out a bit and pre-aim your guns towards C-cap, so you can shoot the Shinonome, if it goes for the cap and gets spotted by your Farragut. - Hopefully you now kill the Shinonome, supporting your Farragut. - Your look at the mini map tells you, some enemy ships now start panicking, cause they lost vision, they start turning out. Time to pick a ship prone to your caliber and catch it broadside. - The Fuso hasn't been spotted for a while, the last known position indicates it went dark going behind the island in 8-line towards 10-line. Chances are he tries to flank you in 9-line, so you angle towards the edge of the island. ....

I don't have Anhalt, but I got Maya and Tokachi and I don't share your sentiments. The new ships are not all weak. Personally yes, I prefer the ARP Myoko over the Maya, but that is a matter of playstyle. The Maya is more about ambushing DDs and smashing them with the gun reload booster, while the Myoko is designed for continuous damage while kiting away. Both ships are effective at their job. And the Tokachi doesn't get on-shot anywhere, far from it. I tested it with my clan mate @OVanBrucein training room against several BBs. It got down to luck who won the engagement. Out of three duels, and ~100 hits, one hit was a full penetration. The rest was all overpens and sometimes even bounces. I am not sure on the reason for the bounces. I do suspect it is due to the missing torpedo protection compared to the Furutaka. For T8-/T9-BBs the overpens are even more pronounced due to the higher energy of the projectile. I'd say the only BBs that are problematic are the ones with short fuses. Anyway, I don't see a pattern that would require Wargaming to reconsider their premium ship release. Yes, the phantasy ships are ridiculous, but that was not your criticism.

Ich würde auch sagen, dass der Einfluss der CIS-Migration eher positiv ausgefallen ist. Ich habe zwar den Eindruck, dass die BBs mehr campen, fast wie zu Zeiten der Deadeye-Meta. Wenn ich mir aber die Spieler ansehe, dann geht das durch die Bank. Ich könnte also nicht sagen, dass CIS-Spieler hier federführend wirken. Deswegen vermute ich, es liegt an der parallelen Einführung der U-Boote als Silberschiffe. Dadurch sind U-Boote eben viel regelmäßiger in Gefechte gelangt und die BB-Spieler tun das, was sie immer bei Gewitter machen: einnässen. Was den Einfluss der CIS-Spieler angeht, sehe ich diese überproportional bei den guten Spielern. Das macht auch Sinn. Wer zum EU-Server migriert, nimmt bestimmte Umstände auf sich. Das tut man nur für etwas, was einem wichtig genug ist. Die totalen Pfosten werden sich mit der Möglichkeit des Server-Wechsels gar nicht auseinandersetzen und einfach aufm CIS bleiben. Wir kriegen also eher erfahrene Spieler und Erfahrung wirkt sich eher positiv auf die Qualität des eigenen Spiels aus. Das zweiten ist, dass Migranten um die Sprachbarriere wissen. Die CIS-Migranten verfügen vermutlich häufiger über Kenntnisse einer oder mehrerer europäischer Sprachen. Das wiederum ist ein Proxy für Bildung und Bildung wiederum wirkt sich auf das Verständnis von Spielmechaniken aus. Also ist meine Hypothese, dass wir vom CIS-Server - nicht ausschließlich aber vermehrt - gute Spieler bekommen haben.

Oh yes, and Dunkerque. But both ships are not for sale. They were part of these stupid chains of purchases. i don't think they drop from any container.

Let me ping @asalonen. He loved the line and certainly has some good ideas. I did go for concealment, cause you can get it down to ~6.4 km, which is enough to cap later. You don't cap early against DDs that outspot you by 900m, but later, when you cap, you don't want to be seen by every ship in the area. In a way you do get into flanking positions, but more like micro-flanking, i.e. flanking at medium range. To achieve that, you imo need concealment, cause you use island cover and don't want to get caught on your approach. I struggled with the line. The trick I have been told was to shoot AP all the time and never stop shooting. So you shoot from cover, if you can. You use low islands, you hijack other people's smokes, you use your own smokes and if they are not looking your way, you start open-water gunboating. With either AFT or range mod, you have the distance to not get hit back. This is important, cause the Schultz is not as fast as french or russian DDs, so it would get hit a lot below ~12 km. If the targets are angled, you go for the superstructure, which you can easily hit, cause the shells are very accurate. Also the Schultz loves the nose of BBs, where you usually get overpens. The Schultz gets full pens and lots of them and melts a BBs HP fast, plus the BB can't heal a lot back. All in all it was not a fun line to play, but fun enough to grind it and not skip it.

I have 3 of them. I was very lucky to get the Massachussetts B from a free container in 2018. Then 2021 I bought the Asashio B directly, cause the Asashio was removed from the game and I felt it's a bit like a Kitakami, a funny ship that needs to be preserved for our ancestors And finally this Black Friday I bought the Atago B. The IJN-CAs were my first love in this game. I played hundreds of battles on the Zao in CB. I just wanted a ship that follows that spirit. A ship to stall an entire flank. I was planning on buying the Scharnhorst B. But then I got the Brandenburg from a supercontainer and I felt I don't need the little brother anymore. I don't think many of the new ones are worth it. Most of them were available for free. Others are inferior designs. Just the early classics imo make sense. And since they are so few ships out of so many, the loot boxes are imo wasted money. They are 20 ships in total. 4 DDs: Asashio, Sims, Cossack, Loyang 6 CAs: Atago, Alaska, Atlanta, Yoshino, Mainz and Napoli 6 BBs: Tirpitz, Massachussetts, Jean Bart, Scharnhorst, Pommern and Kearsarge 4 CVs: Graf Zeppelin, Kaga, Saipan and Chkalov

It's funny there is only 375 lots for the two superships. Looks like WG doesn't want to be embarrassed not getting rid of the ships if they auctioned off 1000 of them. On the upside I appreciate the signal of exchanging FXP for coal. There is always some hidden agenda. When they did that for credits, they tried to drain our credits, so we couldn't afford superships later. So now they want to drain FXP. I wonder why.

After now being through most of the Battle Pass, I want to raise attention to one detail that I find very important for the design of the Battle Pass. Like with the Daily Missions, the Battle Pass missions do not count Clan Battles. I know the understanding of Wargaming is that they feel getting steel is already enough of a "reward" for playing CB. For many Clan players however now there are competing interests. Do they want to help a nearly full Clan Battle division and thus fulfil their obligation for the clan, even if that means, they may not be able to finish several Daily Missions? I see people popping out of CB divisions and then play random battles, because the CBs are not eligible. I find and always found this rule hampered clans a lot to motivate their players. Even more so now, that many get steel through. I can't understand why WG has been hesitant for so many years about this. I'd even rather have less direct CB rewards but as a compensation have CB count for the Battle Pass. People just can't be expected to do these missions after 3-4 hours of CB. I feel a player who does that volume of playing a game has fulfilled his commitment. This is basically the reason why I am posting about this here yet again. Because I have been playing CB all evening and now I sit in front of an empty bar representing my progress in the Daily Mission and Weekly Mission. WG now expects me to play until 2AM to get this mission chain done. Plus CBs don't come easy and nobody can make other carry them through the missions in CB. Everybody has to carry his weight. Even when all players get the same flat baseXP. They have played the game on a very high level. They deserve to get that base XP attributed to them. It's time that this restriction is removed. I'd happily go into more detail or elaborate the issue, if that is needed to make a case here.

I signed up, too. At least for once this community will shoot the right target, even if for the wrong reason. @MrWastee: Alt-account confirmed. You pushed it.

@KillStealBoss Suck on this: Little Shop of Horrors 'Dentist' w/lyrics - YouTube

Naja, ein bisschen schon. Bei Clangefechten hab ich früher oft höherwertige Tarnungen und ökonomische Signale montiert gehabt. Nach der Trennung montiere ich weiterhin oft bessere Boni. Der Grund ist die Erwartung eines positiven Ergebnisses. Falls es nicht gut läuft, fange ich i.d.R. allmählich an, die Boni durch einfachere zu ersetzen. Man kann darüber debattieren, ob nun die Henne oder das Ei zuerst da war. Aber zumindest im alten System waren Spieler mit hochwertigen Verbrauchstarnungen engagierter, vielleicht sogar verbissen zu gewinnen. Oder hast du damals viele Griefer und afk-Spieler mit Typ 59/Spring Sky/Mosaic-Tarnung gesehen? Im Gegenteil. Wenn ich tatsächlich mal einen afk-Spieler mit einer von den richtig hochwertigen Tarnungen gesehen habe, dann waren es immer Server-Probleme und diese Leute haben alle Hebel in Bewegung gesetzt, zurück ins Spiel zu kommen. Da kann Wargaming eine gute Lektion lernen. Steckt einen afk-Spieler nicht ins Coop, sondern bucht jedem Spieler im Team 100k Credits Entschädigung vom afk-Spieler aufs Konto. Ihr werdet schauen, wie schnell es mit afk vorbei ist.

Interesting. Not really data-wise. All we see is that over a period of 9 months ~ 3 years ago, there was no significant change in battle duration. This was before the CV rework and long before subs entered the game. I don't see any possible breakpoint. However what's interesting is that the data exists and we can conclude it is processed continuously and readily available to vertain WG-staff. So again, my question about battle times may seem inappropriate to some, as in "none of your business", it remains a question that could be easily answered.

I started with the old CVs to introduce you into the thought. Once the audience is familiar with a simple example and understands the principle, the presenter walks them to the more complex reality.

So where does it excel? If I'm in a staring contest, i might as well take Stalingrad for better tanking and sigma or, if I need the fires, go for Moskva, the one ship that can reliably hit a Kleber. Why take a cruiser into CB, that has no utility, can't kite and can't smash DDs?

I got Sevastopol. The only two RB-ships missing are Gibraltar and Colbert. The Sevastopol at least gets mentioned occasionally when people are discussing CB line-ups. That is a long shot from being actualyl used, but then again nobody ever even mentioned Gibraltar or Colbert for CB. So in a way, Sevastopol is one step ahead. It's not a bad ship, it's just missing some mitigating quality. No radar, no secondaries, no torps. The Siegfried is just better tier for tier and a better package. Even Siegfried misses the punch against DDs. Sevastopol is really a BB taking a cruiser spot. But then again Siegfried is very poserful, so Sevastopol is still balanced. Gibraltar is imo a bit like Anchorage. A smoke cruiser with a huge firing penatly in smoke can be even worse than a cruiser that doesn't have smoke at all. At least there you know you will be spotted. But a smoke cruiser that feels safe in smoke and suddenly gets spotted by a DD, cen be devastating. And 9.5km smoke firing penalty is just not practical. Maybe when you are in division with on or two DDs, that make sure no enemy DD gets within 9.5km of you, but even then DDs have other jobs to do than babysit a Gibraltar. I'd say Sevastopol is still the better pick, but I could perfectly live without ever having either of them

The CVs appear to be closer together in statistic terms because of technical reasons. In the old RTS-days there was only 2 CV-classes per tier and mostly one CV per side. So there was a 50% chance of getting the exact same ship mirrored. If two players in the exact same ship compete, the winrate of that ship will converge towards 50%, the more that happens. It got a little more open with the CV-rework, but the general principle applies. CVs in general rarely see new ships, because they only cover even tiers. So when a new ship is added, it's "en vogue" and every CV player tends to play it more. We recently saw that a lot with Maltas on both sides. The more the same ship is mirrored and the fewer ships of the same class are in a battle to blur this effect, the more the winrates converge towards 50%. This is one effect. The other is the indirect impact of CVs. You are right that CVs struggle more to perfectly time their attacks and exploit vulnerable moments. In e.g. a BB I can wait for that turn and get lots of citadel hits on the target wihtin 10-20s. The CV is hampered by its long travel time. The role of the CV however is to manipulate its targets into a vulnerable position. You can e.g. tell the difference between a bad player that torps a target that already is torped by a friendly DD in a way that makes the target turn and thus miss the hard hitting DD-torps. A good CV will see those DD-torps and either ignore the targets if the torps look good, or, if the torps are missing, attack from an angle that will manipulate the target back into the intercept with the DD-torps. Or, much simpler, the CV will manipulate a target to give broadside to his BB team mate. A bad CV will do 5k per attack. A good CV will do 5k per attack and manipulate the target into taking 20k from team mates. You do not see these results much in the data, since the CV is not credited for damage of his team mates due to his manipulation. But this manipulation is a key skill of a good CV player.

New LEGO set:

I think what he meant was, that being top of your team implies little about being the best player on your team, even less so about being the one the most responsible for a win or the least responsible for a loss. Thunderer players regularly are top of Ranked teams, cause they stay way in the back, where they cannot support the cap contesting in any way. Then they farm damage thelongest on their losing teams, cause every other ship is closer to the enemy and gets killed first, doing less damage. It's funny tho, cause being top of a team is a popular defense of bad players, when arguing a loss was not their fault.

You are making nothing but xheap excuses and personal attacks to justify a name that imo violates the WG-name-convention. Your cheap examples don't apply. A headshot or an assassin could be a last resort against a violent person, like a dictator. Because, as "nomercy", the recipient of such treatment is not defined, none of the names you gave as an example compares to your name. Your name in contrast clearly states an illegal and highly immoral act. There are no warcrimes against perpetrators, as the recipient of a warcrime is a victim, no matter the circumstances. I argued that a warcrime subsumes any number of criminal acts, such as but not limited to killings and violations against women and children. Your name does not say "I hate warcrimes". Common interpretation is that a name applies to the person choosing it. You chose "Captain_warcrime", so you are Captain_Warcrime. Naming after something means affiliation. So you can come up with any kind of personal attack and other horse manure explanation. You are disrespecting the victims of warcrimes. So if anything here is pathetic, its your immature ignorant mentality and the fact that nobody cares to make you change that name, which might be interpreted as support of your name by Wargaming, which again I find quite irritating.

Ja, ist es. Für die Frage aber unerheblich: