HMS_Kilinowski

Stalingrad should be your priority. It still is a ship viable for "competitive" modes, especially if ship restrictions to BBs apply. It's almost a battleship in terms of bow-tankiness. It has excellent penetration on AP-shells and extremely tight dispersion even for a cruiser. The only downside is that Stalingrad has suffered from the CV-rework, since its turning circle is bad for a cruiser and the old camping playstyle will make it a stationary target for CV-attacks. Also the nerf on battlecruisers in terms of long fire duration applies. Still, Stalingrad is one of very few russian CAs, that I feel comfortable in. The Bourgogne is nice, too, but it blocks a BB slot in the team, which also means you have to carry harder, since your team is facing an aditional BB as opponent. On top, the Bourgogne still is a choice of many rather good players. They have good results. This raises the benchmark for PR on the Bourgogne. So it is rather hard to reach an average performance on the Bourgogne

Are you using Google Translate? Nobody can understand your post. You are playing PvE. How does Artificial Intelligence cheat? Maybe ask someone familiar with your native language to translate what you want to say.

If nobody lost health, why was a kill attributed to him? Doesn't that necessarily imply some enemy lost health because of direct damage by the submarine? Maybe you are focussing on the sub too much. If eight players are above you in XP, that cannot be explained by the actions of the sub, can it? The numbers clearly indicate you did not (a) contest and caps, i.e. "play the objective" (b) spot for your team to an extent sufficient for some serious spotting damage. A T10-team should have a total of more than 400k HP, a pure T10 even more than 500k. Your team took 26k away from that pool, based on your spotting, That is very low for a DD. (c) take a position providing intelligence data. You spotted 2 ships. You killed no planes, so this was likely a battle without CVs. Unless there were only 2 ships going for your flank, you, as the most forward ships should spot more than 2 ships. Any way, you had good team mates who dealt damage, took caps and spotted. So eight of them earned more XP. Also 1373 baseXP is not a bad result. You didn't do bad, others just did better. And based on the tasks I mentioned that were done by others, their baseXP gains seem appropriate. I fail to see the big deal.

How can you tell?

Maybe the sub did way more spotting damage than you can tell. Spotting damage now is rewarded as much as actual damage, since it wouldn't have been possible otherwise. That implies that as a DD, if you were spotting as much as you think you did, you should get rewarded generously. If eight players are above you, the reason for that likely isn't captured by your perception. I can see from the details, you did 26k spotting damage. This indicates you either were too far back, so most ships did their own spotting or even spotted for you. Also we can see you had 0/120 capture points. So contrary to your claim, you did not play the objective and thus not get any reward for doing so.

Do I understand this correctly? Any factor that increases winrate above the solo winrate is intentional stat passing in your opinion? So we all are forbidden by decency to seek company of like-minded people in a clan, cause our regular division play is inflating our winrate? Alos who pushes newcomers into T6? It is not the harsh low- and mid-tier economy, cause you can earn a living much easier in those tiers than in higher tiers, especially if your play is average at best. The games also don't get easier, as you yourself have already found out. There is no rational reason to go to higher tiers, unless a person seeks a challenge. So nobody is pushed anywhere. They move there on their own behalf, driven by unjustified vanity.

I would go for the Siegfried instead, if you want a german battle cruiser. Also, you should think in long terms. In WoWs you need many different flavors to meet certain mission requirements. I already have lots of german premium cruisers, but not a single french premium cruiser. There are not that many. So for my portfolio of ships, the Carnot would add something new, while the Ägir is already covered by several ships. Another possible issue is the current meta. Battles are mostly long range staring contests. The Ägir has a turtleback, which gets citadelled easily by long range plunging fire. The accuracy is poor at long range. All the advantages are for a push into medium to close range, which is a death sentence with the current lack of guts in the BB community.

The idea in general is not bad. The issue is you start at the wrong end of the problem: People using commanders trained above the usual level of a tier. This is rarely a problem, since most players hardly play lower tiers, once they move past the initial grind. We do not have a problem with people using more skills than recommended. We have a problem with players using less skills than recommended. If a player moves into T6 with less than a 10pt-commander, that means their concealment is terrible and subpar. They however rush through the tiers, driven by greed. So we experience a huge skill gap in medium and high tiers, between experienced players with elaborated high-tier builds and noobs with fresh commanders of 10pts or less. The solution: We don't need limitation of commanders, but minimum requirements for tiers. A commander with less than 10 points should not be allowed to be assigned to a ship of T6 and higher. A commander with less than 12 points should not be allowed to be assigned to a ship of T8 and higher.

Es gibt ja auch noch Z-42 und Mecklenburg. Austin halte ich für zu situativ. Über die Jahres wurden viele Inseln so abgeändert, dass man sich kaum noch ungesichtet dahinter verstecken und ungestraft farmen kann. Viele Karten bieten einfach nicht genug Inseln für diesen Spielstil und ohne Deckung ist man jedermanns Lieblingsziel. Das braucht viel Erfahrung und Detailwissen. Gato hab ich mir heute morgen geholt. Im Convoy-Modus ist sie ganz brauchbar, weil die Teams in Nahkämpfe gezwungen werden. In normalen Gefechten, wo die Schiffsschrauben der BBs schon zu rosten anfangen, weil die nur hinten rumstehen, ist die Gato ziemlich nutzlos. Bei gutem Build kann die Gato nach vorne alle 15 Sekunden einen Torpedo raushauen. Die Gearing als Zerstörer mit vergleichbaren Torpedos lädt im Schnitt alle 9-12 Sekunden einen Torpedo nach, je nachdem wie stark man sie auf Torpedos trimmt. Ich habe eigentlich nur in den Runden nennenswert Schaden gemacht, in denen ich Shotgunnen konnte, und das ist auch zu situativ. Das ist wohlgemerkt nur der Eindruck von einem Tag und es fehlen schlicht globale Stats für eine qualifizierte Einschätzung. Es ist einfach noch zu früh, um seinen teuren Stahl für ein Experiment zu opfern. Roosevelt ist absolut nichts für CV-Anfänger und gute Spieler meiden sie auch. Keines der Geschwader taugt, um DDs effizient zu bekämpfen und damit ist die FDR eher eine Bürde für ihr Team, weil der Gegner-CV i.d.R. die eigenen DDs dezimieren kann. Ich würde bei dieser Auswahl tatsächlich erst mal die Stalingrad nehmen. Die ist und bleibt einfach ein BB auf einem CA-Platz. Mit extrem genauen Geschützen, 50mm Panzerung und Radar kann man nicht ins Klo greifen.

Beide Häkchen sind gesetzt, also "moving und "armed" und die KI ist auf Level "High". Ein paar DDs kommen auch (z.B. Dalarna oder Humphreys), andere wieder nicht. Die sinnvollste Erklärung, die mir in den Sinn kommt, ist dass bestimmte Schiffe nun auf eine "ideale" Kampfdistanz programmiert sind und versuchen, diese zum nächstgelegenen Spieler herzustellen. Ich hatte den Eindruck, dass die Bots tatsächlich 180° von meinem ungesichteten Wegfahren und dieses Winkel fortwährend aufrecht erhalten.

Ich hätte da mal ne Frage oder besser Anregung: Ich weiß ja nicht, wie lange die gegenwärtige KI schon in dieser Ausprägung im Spiel ist, aber: Sollte ein Bot nicht irgendwann mal beherzt angreifen, anstatt die Karte bei A10 verlassen zu wollen, umso mehr wenn er schon seit geraumer Zeit nach Punkten verliert? Ist das so gewollt? Hat der Programmierer versucht, die KI einem 40%er-CV nachzuempfinden?

In the german forum, yes, but I don't see it here at this very moment.

Als Anspruch würde ich es auch nicht verstehen. Man könnte es als Frage der Nutzenmaximierung sehen. Bestimmte Namen sind interessant, einprägsam oder einfach nur lustig. In meinen Divisionen lachen wir oft über bestimmte Namen. Es hebt die Stimmung in einem Spiel, das sonst so oft toxisch ist. Es wäre also für den Namenshalter und für die Spielerschaft ein positiver Beitrag, wenn dieser Name im Spiel anzutreffen wäre. Wargamings Regel "Wer zuerst kommt, mahlt zuerst" ist auch völlig legitim. Es gibt aber auch gute Gründe, inaktive Namen wieder allgemein zugänglich zu machen. Wargaming könnte solche Namen als Wunschnamen monetarisieren. Ein Name, der mehr nachgefragt ist, hat einen höheren Wert für dessen Halter. Unser Wirtschaftssystem beruht zu einem guten Teil auf dem Prinzip, dass jemand der eine Sache hat, aber lieber eine andere Sache hätte, diese an jemanden veräußert, der sie haben will und bereit ist, den Eigentümer dafür monetär zu entschädigen.

Ofc, but I also have a responsibility to inform the reader about recent developments in the game. Like accusations of rigged games:

I would make the choice based on what ships I get for Clan Battles. The Henri IV got nerfed too hard. They nerfed the acceleration so much that now propulsion mod is a must, which in return only gives you back the normal acceleration. As price you pay with slow rudder-shift. So the Henri really got killed by Wargaming. The Marseille on the other side was even restricted in Clan Battles to some strange rule like "one Marseille or one Napoli per team". So it seems to perform rather well. That is why I would currently prefer the battle cruiser line.

The statement never was intended as a promise. It was meant as a definite discouragement for those players who suggested subs to be added and initially wanted them in the game. In fact this was an unusually clear rejection of a request, a rejection that seems harmful for WGs interests. By being that clear, WG back then seems to have had accepted the possibility of players, hoping for submarines, to leave the game, hurting their revenues. Today's Wargaming would in hindsight probably have made a statement like: "We keep thinking about ways to implement submarines into the game, but do not have any plans to do so in the foreseeable future." This would have been in accordance to the current marketing language practice we observe: "Don't take away their hopes or they will leave, but also don't make any promises. Be as vague as possible." We have seen similar cases with stuff like Kitakami or Puerto Rico or steel ships being moved to coal. One might argue that the player base, taking such words all too literally, has promoted the current policy of no information, no promises, no definite statements. I mean it's the same with test ships. We used to see test rounds and reviews of upcoming ship months before they were released. This was very helpful, since for many ships you may want to start saving ressources or have a short window of opportunity, like e.g. with dockyard ships where you have to commit with the boosters before seeing actual stats on their performance. Ofc then some not so bright players were upset about any change that would be made to those test ships still work in progress: "Wargaming promised me this fire-spamming cruiser with 500k HE dpm. You're lying, Wargaming. I'll never spend a cent on the game again." So Wargaming tought the players were too dumb to handle such info - and sadly I admit they are right - and moved to the current policy: Ignore the players' interest in future plans and treat them like mushrooms: Feed them dung and keep them in the dark. I spam F11 for you.

I agree there is no reason why CVs are T4 and subs are not. The german type 2 submarine would perfectly fit into T4 and be historically accurate. Ofc there is always the possibility of playing "these two utter griefing classes of ships" and prove to us they are broken by presenting your own broken results. So far your results would only call for a buff of both classes. So you played them, you can't seem to make them work, which is strange, since there is "no counterplay", right? Success guaranteed. I find that strange, cause the logical thing for you would be to call for a buff of both classes. How would you explain that paradox?

Can you explain how that works in battles featuring 24 players? You see, if Wargaming wants to buff your results, that implies nerfing the results of 12 enemy player. Where does Wargaming come up with 12 such players, who all have such good results, they warrant getting their results nerfed? Statistically, only maybe 1/3 of the players are even that good. On top, the bad players play more battles, since some of them die in 5 min and can go through 10-13 battles per hour, while a good player manages ~4-5 battles per hour. So Wargaming has a pool of bad players, that need their results buffed, about 6 times the size of the pool of good players that would need to get nerfed, if your theory was correct. So explain to me how do I nerf a good player without at the same time punishing 5-6 other bad players in the same team with a loss?

I just don't get you people. Subs have been in the game for one and a half years now. Reworked CVs have been in the game for over 3 years now. Every now and then you make your ever same topics about how they should be removed and ofc nothing ever happens. You are still here, 3 years after reworked-CVs have been introduced and you threatened to leave and not spend money on the game. And with subs you did the same. "Remove subs or we will leave". And yet here you still are. And you fail to understand that it is you that make Wargaming ignore you. How long can you make empty threats and wonder why nobody takes you seriously? Here is your dilemma. You can make credible threats, if you threaten to leave and then leave. Then you may change the game to what you would like it to be, but you won't be around to enjoy it. Or you can bluff and stay even if your demands are not met, but then you play a game that you don't like in its state. But you guys want to have your cake and eat it. How can this work? Way I see it there are two ways out of that dilemma. You either leave as you threaten to do, and like the bitter-tasting moth that is eaten, you will save the residual population, save credibility of future threats of other players. Or you stop making these transparent threats, accept that you need the game more than the game needs you and keep playing. Decide now. Like your internet provider should make you an honorary customer. But he just ignores you and charges you an overpriced old contract, cause you already give him your money.

Yeah, we felt a bit abandoned, running from a lemmingtrain with the tails between our legs. We knew we wouldn't live long, so we jsut tried to drag them away from the caps as much as possible. You guys carried hard. Chapeau.

I am all with you on the HE spam. But you also need to see this is not a dumbing down, but an addition of another play style. Dumbing down would be, if AP was removed from ships. He spammers are not a global change and if you look at typical spammers like Smolensk, you don't see them in the game much anymore. If you look at recent lines, e.g. the pan-american CLs, they don't even have HE. So HE is not a pattern and indicator of dumbing down the game. The free premium consumables make the battles cheaper for the players, since a full load cost up to 88k credits extra. I wouldn't say that pressing that one button to auto-refresh premium consumables is such a benchmark of intelligence. The point, as you said, is that you have to remember so many more things. Many of them need you to rethink your approach. When e.g. I could just spam HE on DDs in duels, I now must keep in mind that ships like Ragnar will tank my HE shells in the center. Okay Gearing does that, too. The point tho is that the game is more complex and how is the game getting dumbed down while at the same time becoming more complex? The answer is, it is not more dumbed down. It is more complex than ever. Just the player base is to lazy to adapt to the new challenges and information. They do their old potato moves and whine if that doesn't bring success anymore. The players are dumbed down, not the game. None of your examples is making your case of the game being dumbed down. They are changes that make some mechanics less effective, not requiring less intelligence. In fact the machine guns on rocket planes even make CV attacks more complex, since rocket attacks now need more lead and thus more foresight on behalf of the CV-player. The overpens definitely make the game even less dumbed down, since now you need to aim accordingly to not generate overpens in a BB, and you need to make an educated guess as a light cruiser, whether the caliber shot at you, requires you to give flat broadside to provoke overpens, or need to angle to make the shells bounce. And it still does. As @TenshiAkumaNdndrepeatedly asks and never gets answered, how come he still gets skill-driven results and I still get results that depend a lot on my actions, too, if it's mostly dumped down RNG now?

As I said, I stand in awe as to your patience. But don't you feel that if a person is rude, it sets a bad example to others when they still get what they demand? I have, have you? Apparently you were unable to comprehend my flowchart analogy. If you fail to understand the new tactics and decision making nodes, you just have not reached the end of your learning potential. I know it is inconvenient when you have played a game for 5 years an think you know everything and then something changes and you have to relearn. But a game is not supposed to be about convenience but about challenge. This is why we make kids play games, to challenge them, so their minds grow for the real challenges of life.

If you play it right in a DD and the sub plays it right, you lose about half your HP. Try getting a better deal in a DD duel. And ofc you can also dodge torps when pushing in, not running away. I just tested it in training room against a clan mate yesterday. How often have you been in training room, trying to understand sub mechanics? You forgot to number that sub question. The weakness of a CV is that he cannot switch ammo types. If the target changes its angle towards the planes, you cannot change the pattern of your attack to say a more vertical one on rocket planes or a more narrow one on torpedoes. In a BB you can adapt to that in ~15s. In a DesMoines you switch ammo in less than 5s. In a CV I will go to a flank only to find that within the minute it took me to go there, the whole situation has changed, the target I wanted to attack took a citadel or torp and is gone and the rest is sitting in an a AA blob. Unless ofc I am some super-unicum player with perfect foresight and have anticipated that and already gone to another target that I knew would put himself in a vulnerable position before even they knew, but that sound like a skill issue. The balancing weakness of subs is their limited HP-Pool, their extremely limited and short lasting DCP, their low damage output, their Kawachi-like speed either underwater or surfaced, depending on the class, the fact that they give away their position with every ping, the fact that almost every ship has a dedicated and independently reloading weapon against subs, which they use very liberally, since it doesn't cost them DPM and ofc the utter stupidity of the subs team mates, who so often drive so close next to it that it is hit by splash damage and has to waste a DCP to not create an oil spill. You'd know all of this, if you'd play subs, but you don't so you created this freak version of a sub in your head that is overpowered and invincible. You are exaggerating in favor of your argument, which is not considered a serious discussion method. You are talking from your biased and limited experience with playing against CVs. Ofc, when you are on the receiving end it always feels like a CV is on top of you in seconds. You yourself havenever played CVs and have never tested CVs and you have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you'd know your numbers are utterly exaggerated. They are maybe right on a T3 map, which are small. So I'll leave you the face saving back door of talking about T3. On a real map, like say North, it takes about 70s for Shokaku planes to switch flank, and there we're talking about the fast torpedo bombers using speed boost. Also we're talking about the time it takes to reach the middle of the cap, not the time it takes to reach a ship further in the back and the time it takes to reach an angle sufficient to at least do some damage, given the target does not maneuver. It wasn't the good players who left the game. It was the players that got used to using the same tactics for 6 years and didn't want to change them. I can understand that and it makes sense. The WoWs community is more of an older generation. They don't react well to change. They found their tactics, they spent 6 years to bring those tactics to perfection. Then the rules changed. A player who was used to get good results camping next to an island in Moskva or Des Moines suddenly had to understand that this made him vulnerable to plane and sub attacks. Ofc, they could have found out about that before the CV-rework, if we had had a CV in every second game. But we saw CVs in 1 out of 20 games, so these flawed tactics were hardly abused. Then, as I asaid, things changed and older people or at least such unwilling to change had to adapt, which they hated. So rather than going to training romm again, which they found an insult to their skill, they left. The game has not been dumbed down. The players are just too dumb to even understand the complexity and want to comfort their own inability by telling themselves, there is nothing where they refuse to look. I would absolutely love to see the old forum again. I mean you can see it here with people like @TenshiAkumaNdndbeing frustrated. Why would they even offer advice to those who only dismiss and insult them? They know the game, they hold the advantage. It is in their interest to not share their knowledge in the first place. And it also seems to be in the interest of the ignorant majority, cause they want to live in their bubble of confirming to each other it is not worth trying to adapt, cause there is no way to adapt, which gives them comfort. And because you mention Saltface, I was honestly slapping my hands against my forehead when I saw how patiently he tries to educate people like Aethervoxx, even after being downvoted and dismissed by him. I mean: Chapeau!!! But to me this seems to be in vain.

Yes, exactly. But it is even worse. Streamers never admitting their own potato plays whenever they fail, but claiming skill, when they succeed, is only one side of the problem. The other problem is that no more discussions of mechanics are going on here. Nobody wants to know how things work. They only want to whine, get empathy for a few losses and agree that each of them could have done nothing better. Maybe I'm nostalgic, but iirc in the first 3 years there were real discussions going on. People were asking how something specifically works, and people who knew would explain it and the implications on tactics. Also, the information is just not there anymore. I learned a lot of basics from watching iChase, reading LittleWhiteMouse's reviews, checking recommendations on Shipcomrade. Many responsible and able people bothered investing weeks if not months of their time to generate content that would educate the players. But then Wargaming made major changes to the game, that rendered these informations outdated. Some youtube-tutorials had to be removed, cause a sample of a copyrighted song was playing in the back and, hell, the music industry feels that song was the true reason why the tutorial got clicks. The Content Creators have been abused and dismissed to the point, where they just don't bother anymore. I watched those videos on how to play/counter subs. They were all so uber-simplified, any person with half a brain cell needn't watch it, but could have done the same tutorial themselves. There is no explanations beyond the basics of the basics. I mean Wargamings own tutorials say it all:

Oh yes. Doing 40k damage on average in a T10-sub is really the fires of hell unleashed on this innocent community of people giving it the old college try.