HMS_Kilinowski

Since we have lots of CVs, smoke is more needed than radar. Radar is nice if you have team mates who shoot the targets you reveal. In random battles they are not up to that simple task, so save yourself and have smoke. PA-smoke is between RN-smoke and the longer smokes. The duration is good enough for spamming a single target, and the number of smokes and reload is enough to use it defensively against planes. The T9 and T10 are not that bad. The T8 - Hsienyang - is imo the slump of the PA-DD-line. It's not a gunboat since it lacks firepower, and the torps are 9.2 km, which puts you into radar range. So the playstyle calls for cautious positioning. Try to have support from good cruisers, so get their firepower against superior other DDs. Attack damaged DDs. Use your torps against targets that are not covered by radar. If radar is everywhere, try to bait the radar. Switch back and forth between guns and torps, the radar cruisers knows a DD is aiming for him and radars. Don't go deep into the radar, just dip into it's range. Then when you are radared you immediately leave the area and wait 40s. Now radar is on cooldown for at least 100s. You can get in, torp the radar cruiser and move out of radar range before he can radar again.

I can say when I actually started taking things more seriously: Around T3. I can say when, according to my current understanding of the game, a player should start to learn about game mechanics: T4. And then I can try to say when I observe the majority of the players start bringing some sense into the game: Really, T11. This is a question of mentality. Some players live in foreign countries and never learn the foreign language. Others don't go there unless their language skills are fluent. It takes curiosity. For me the point of watching videos on the game came early. It's my nature to look for entire guides on builds for RPGs before I even get my first skill points, so i don't waste progress or have inefficient builds. I trust in others to know what they are talking about. I have done so for many games and many years. While WoWs is no RPG, still with the first captain point the dilemma arises, where to spend it on. There are people who just spend it. I am a person who feels insecure about such things, so I immediately searched for guides on how to build my first ships and captains. Then everything falls into place. Some build refers certain mechanics. You don't understand what that even means, so you continue reading or watching. When a video ends, another one gets queued. And suddenly you get all the info. How could I go on yoloing through my battles, when now I have become aware there is much more to it than aim & shoot. I have had guys in this game who asked me about advice and as soon as I talked math they said they - I quote - "dont give a [excrement] about the theorycraft of WoWs". And they jump right into T8 after 18 months of hiatus, stacking signals to rush to T10, feeling they did their part if they sink one ship. None of the tiers is supposed to be rushed. Each tier got a bunch of ships, nicely designed and with a unique playstyle. There is no reason to rush through nine tiers of ships to then spend the rest of your time in T10, just cause of some ill concept that T10 is where the game really starts. The progress through the tiers regulates itself, as long as players only allow themselves to progress when they have mastered a tier. Also it makes a huge difference how you pla through these tiers. When I started playing there were four nations in the game and ten lines. If a player wanted to stay with a class, e.g. BBs, he had two lines to grind, so naturally he would get bored faster than players today, who can play through 6 BBs in one tier before moving on to the next tier.

After once again experiencing our weekend meta, I can say: No way I will ever play a support class. It's just too obvious now. You want to have an impact on the game. If the support-class was designed to have a massive impact, it would need to deliver massive buffs. You can heal a ship, but you cannot prevent it from throwing away that new life going full broadside. Like in Arms Race, all the reload buffs are useless, if the team you are supporting cannot hit their targets. A support player would likely be utterly frustrated. Plus at the end, the team will not be grateful. They simply will expect the supporter to dedicate his entire time to support them individually. They will overlook his positive support for the team and be toxic about the one thing he didn't do rather than the ten things he did. At the end of the day, the supporter will have gained a sound knowledge of profanities in many different languages spoken on the EU-server.

There are a couple of numbers that strike me, namely when it comes to removed ships: I can now better understand why Jean Bart is removed. If Smolensk was not removed for being overpowered, but for having 40000 of them in the game, it also makes sense to remove Jean Bart, for she is equally popular. Taking into account that threshold, the next ships threatened of removal would be the Alaska, which is another 8000 units short of being removed. Rather striking in contrast is the Kronshtadt. She was claimed to be removed for being too popular. Is there are double standard? Obviously Alaska, Georgia and Salem are more popular and even Yoshino is equally frequent, but all these ships are still available, while Kronshtadt seems to be permanently removed. I wonder why?

So some BB comes to heal, does zero damage while healing, cause he is half dead and needs to stay dark. Then he goes off and gets himself High-Caliber, Kraken, the whole package, none of which he could have got without my help, and I get squat?

I generally like the idea and it might make the game more interesting and tactical. However knowing the community and the developer, I have some serious doubts how much fun it's going to be to play this class. I can already see it as a DD in Arms Race. I am the [woman that sells her body] for my team mates that tries to answer their vain needs for buffs, while they, camping in the back, expect me to expose doing so. At the end I get a fraction of their XP as a compensation for my altruistic service. The experiences with support classes in many games are similar. "Healer heal me, so I can shortchange you on the loot." The community has proven over the years to be rather self-centered and Wargaming has a habit of rewarding selfish actions way better than taking actions to win the game the safest possible and most direct way. That experience likely makes such a class anything but appealing to play.

Weil es doch keine Rolle spielt, ob das Schiff bereits kostenlos erspielbar war. Die Frage ist doch, ob jemand Geld investiert hat. In diesem Fall hat WG, zurecht, eine Kompensation in Dublonen vorgesehen, also bei anderen Premiumschiffen, die nicht kostenlos erspielbar waren. Die Mentalität ist nachvollziehbar und integer. Man sagt "ihr habt das Spiel mit Geld unterstützt. Das soll euer Schaden nicht sein." Das halte ich nicht nur für integer, es ist auch schlau, weil man über Vertrauen und Kulanz Kundenbindung erreicht.

Wenn das Schiff in dem Event erspielt wurde, versteh ich das auch. In meinem Fall, also durch Supercontainer, ist es etwas schade. Ich hab ja quasi eine 1.5% Chance einen Supercontainer zu ziehen und da ist es nochmal eine geringe Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass eine Schiff drin ist. Das übersetzt sich für mich so, dass ich mit einer verschwindend geringen Wahrscheinlichkeit ein paar Mio Credits ziehe. Da hab ich ja völlig umsonst gejubelt. Und selbst da, okay, kann man noch argumentieren es habe mich ja nix gekostet. Aber es gibt ja tatsächlich Spieler, die Echtgeld für den Kahn hingeblättert haben. Wenigstens in diesen Fällen, sollte man den Spielern Dublonen zugestehen. Wer gibt schon 16 Euro für ein paar Mio Credits aus. Man kann Abschläge diskutieren. Wer lange seinen Spaß mit einem Schiff hatte, hat es auch "abgenutzt". Aber das etwas, das was gekostet hat zu etwas wird, das fast wertlos ist, halte ich für unintegere Geschäftspraxis. Das mögen andere anders sehen.

Die Graf Spee hab ich vor 8 Monaten ausm Supercontainer gezogen. Von daher hauen mich ein paar Mio Credits Kompensation nicht vom Hocker. Ich hätte es weit fairer empfunden, wenn WG hier mit der Knauserei aufhört und man für Premiumschiffe auch die üblichen Dublonen bekommt. Wer die Graf Spee für Echtgeld gekauft hat, muss sich doch völlig übern Tisch gezogen fühlen. Ansonsten finde ich es erfrischend, dass das Dock wieder genutzt wird. Ob die Odin wenigstens die 3500 Dublonen wert ist, wird stark davon abhängen, ob sie nun tatsächlich so massiv generft ins Spiel kommt. Günstiger Preis ist eine Sache. Ein Schiff, mit dem man keine Siege einfahren kann, braucht ja allenfalls der Sammler. Und auch Sammler mögen lieber Schiffe, die es tatsächlich gegeben hat. Was ich zuletzt über Nerfs gelesen habe, hat nicht den Eindruck erweckt, die Odin könne mithalten. Mal abwarten, aber ich bin skeptisch. Bei der Cossack hat man wenigstens ein Schiff gehabt, das ohne Wenn und Aber mithalten kann und das für einen rekordverdächtigen Euro. Früher war halt doch alles besser, wie Omma schon gewusst hat.

I am not overly excited. I have seen too many mess-ups to be enthusiastic. It's unfortunate that we only get credits for our Graf Spee. As with the perma-camos on Moskva it makes me think twice what to get in the future, cause what you spend doubloons on today, might be a poorly compensated event gift in 3 months. It would be better if players got full doubloon compensation on whatever duplicates they get. It would encourage people to buy stuff without hesitation. The good thing is however that WG seems to have understood what was wrong with the PR-event, that you cannot have impossible grinds but rather need to reduce the rewards to ensure a reasonable grind. As for the Odin, I'll wait and see. I have learned my lesson buying weak ships, hating and not playing them. Only a ship of at least average performance is worth any sort of money in this game. If Odin is subpar, I'll not spend doubloons.

I use it on IJN-BBs and battle cruisers. For me the deciding factor is what premium ships you can use it on. You will be able to train it for one silver ship. The more premium ships its skills work on, the more use you make of the captain and his special skills. In my case Yamamoto is specialized for IJN-silver-BB line and on top of that he works perfect on my premium BBs: Musashi, Ishizuchi and the ARP-Kongo-variants. On top of that I use it on the Azuma and Yoshino, which, thx to the fire-duration nerf, benefit a lot from the standard survival build. So all in all I use it on 9 different ships, tho some of them are mostly rather port queens. The captain, as it is now, will also work on Shikishima and all other premium-BBs I might get in the future. For other lines the options are less. DDs are split into gunboat and torpboat builds, so a Yamamoto will only work on one of both or be a compromise. CAs share the same skills, but they don'T benefit that much of the skills. First blood is easy to get on IJN-gunboats since they run into DDs in cap areas. But also IJN-BBs have a good chance of catching a cruiser broadside early. While extra consumables bring quality of life to DDs, on BBs and BCs they mean an extra heal, which can help survival a lot. Also the Kraken, as hard as it is to get, is imo more common on IJN-BBs, because they can finish low hp targets at long range. To underline that with "anecdotal" data: On https://replayswows.com you can search for replays featuring certain ships and achievements. The site currently lists the following videos with Kraken achievements: for Yamato: 404 replays for Shimakaze: 201 replays for Zao: 142 replays for Harugumo: 93 replays Tho, the number for Harugumo is lower since it has been out for only ~21 months, the number of Yamato replays is suggesting, you get the Kraken more often on the BB

I've seen a few in Ranked. Does that mean that Hayate is not popular? Or have most of the players just dumped 2M FXP on Smaland a couple of days ago and not earned another 2M to get the Hayate so shortly afterwards? A lot of players wanted to wait and see which of both ships would feel better. The sudden release of Hayate was totally unanticipated. Many players didn't expect her to be released so shortly after Smaland, so they got Smaland instead. The high frequency of Smalands imo doesn't reflect a difference in popularity, but has rather economic reasons. It was bound to happen, when WG asks 4M for two freemium ships. Who would have that amount of FXP? I criticised that already when we had the same discussions about Smaland and 2M FXP. That amount of FXP is not that easy to come by anymore. I used up a lot of special signals and camos in the last days to make use of the 200%-daily wins. You really bleed signals. Some players have even stated the obvious: After those insane missions in the Puerto Rico grind, many players have completely used up their rare stuff, cause the grind simply wasn't possible otherwise. What were those milestones? "Earn 1M XP after multiplier", "earn 200M credits" among others, each of that to be completed within 4-5 days. Ofc the community has used many of these signals and stuff. Now Narai has been nerfed on top of the other lucrative operations. It's a rip off. I paid real money for my Sims, not because slow torps, bad concealment and one less gun were such a great combination, but so I had a ship for the Dunkirk operation. Isn't that an interesting phenomenon? So some of you conclude the ship is bad and unpopular, cause CCs say so, while the people who repeat that mantra have never played it. Few players picked Hayate, but if Hayate would have been released first and would have been included into an event and campaign, as the Smaland was, wouldn't it be much more frequent now? That may be or may not be. It's not the point, why Hayate is unpopular. It is first and foremost unpopular, because Wargaming charges a price that forces players to choose one of two ships, and they choose the one they saw first, Smaland. One may argue that there is still lots of players left who didn't choose Smaland and have the FXP left but don't pick Hayate. It's also unpopular because the numbers suggest that, because CCs suggested that and because people believe in those numbers. It has nothing to do with player quality. I wouldn't want to play a ship that is not competitive - not saying Hayate is such a ship. Everybody wants a ship that is at least average. Now if that ship costs 2M FXP - remember for that amount one can reset IJN-gunboat line three times and get the Ohio - one wants something extra, be it a more powerful ship, be it an interesting playstyle or just some funny meme. You don't pay extra for no extra. You don't pay extra for a ship that - in your vision - is just something on a straight line between two known old ships, Harugumo and Shimakaze. Mind, I am not saying Hayate is that, not saying she is on a straight line between known designs, but she was presented that way by every CC I watched and even by Wargaming, a.k.a a big red sign saying "Don't buy this!" If they all label a Hayate as a Shima with one less torp launcher and better guns, the image in the head is that of a torpedo boat, and ofc she looks inferior. But it's a gunboat. It's not even a hybrid. It might be called a hybrid, if you consider that Gearing became a hybrid just by the shift of later DD lines towards guns. But originally Gearing was THE gunboat. And that is what Hayate is. One needs to forget what it looks like and see the DNA. If a player would think about what guns he ideally would dream of having on his gunboat, he will likely say "IJN 127mms with faster traverse and reload". And this is what he gets. So he likely would want at least some hard hitting torpedos that can dev strike a single threat rushing his smoke or pushing him against the border. Again that is what he gets. If I think about what I want on a gunboat, I pretty much think of Hayate. The design has its flaws and I disagree with the statement that it would be OP if it got buffed a bit. The concealment of a ship is (supposed) to be a direct function of its allocation within the food chain. Prey needs good concealment. Predators must be seen from further away to balance things out. Hayate is a predator on Gearing level, it should have 5.8km concealment. It's also not as much of a light cruiser as Harugumo, so the rudder shift should be at least half a second faster. I watched some of the few replays on Hayate and I saw that typical unvoluntary drifting into detection range that you see in combination of bad concealment and bad maneuverability. The Hayate wants to get off torps as a Shima would, gets close but then it can't turn fast enough to move away before the pushing target enters its detection range. I think the concealment values and rudder shift mess with the pace that we are used to from Shima. Maybe that is what "git gud" meant. I will be honest. I get more and more interested in Hayate, because it has the right ingredients. The dish is appealing but the ingredients need some adjustment. The next thing is this arbitrary fixation of Wargaming on these straight FXP-prices. If coal ships, steel ship, RP ships, hell even silver ships, all have unique and different prices compared to other ships of the same tier, why do FXP ships all cost the same? There is no rational explanation to this other than "tradition". If a product is deemed inferior, the logical consequence would be to make it cheaper, to still attract customers. T7-Blyskawica costs 4700 doubloons, T7- Scharnhorst costs 9500 doubloons. Why does a Friesland cost the same as an Alaska, why will the next FXP-BC or BB cost the same as the Hayate? The obvious pattern is that late ships got more and more expensive and less attractive. Missouri was an economic must-have. Nelson, Kronshtadt and Musashi compensated the lower credit multiplier by being powerful. The next generation was already 1M, but ships that were not for everybody. Alaska I can't get to work, Friesland and Azuma are not superior in any way to tech-tree ships. Friesland some found interesting, but only due to the botched up CV-rework. So now we are at 2M FXP. If WG thinks or says that we have the FXP, they might be right, I have it. But it is a false conclusion to think, we have it just because we have earned so much of it and already spent it on all options. It's lying around because WG gave us nothing worth spending it on. Those 2M FXP are hard earned. Most players are not unwilling to spend them but still waiting for a ship that is worth it. If that ship is not provided, at some point some might have 4-5M FXP and suddenly WG thinks raising prices to 5M is appropriate. No it's not. FXP is an everyday ressource for everybody. It is not supposed to be exclusive as steel or maybe RP. So the ships are not supposed to be a niche. For 2M FXP the community imo deserves a ship suited for everyone, a no-brainer.

I struggled a bit with Prinz Eugen at first, specifically because of this AP-label that Prinz Eugen got. In hindsight I feel it is misleading. You do a lot of damage with AP and that is very tempting, but bounces and shatters are still bounces and shatters. One should select ammo type pretty much as one would on any other heavy cruiser. The difference is simply that you do more damage in the lucky event that you can use AP, and that you do less damage in the rather usual situation that your target is angled and you need to use HE. Shooting too much AP has two negative effects: First, you get lots of bounces and shatters, since the situation was not suited for AP, and second, opponents will be more aware of the threat and pay more attention to not give broadside to you. A ship shooting mostly AP will likely end up doing less citadel hits than a ship that seems to mostly shoot HE and invites enemies to make mistakes. The Prinz Eugen loves the Expert Loader. The AP is the nasty surprise for a target turning broadside or being ambushed by you. You don't want to alert your victim by shooting AP like a RN-CL. The HE on PE is not all that bad. It deals less damage and has lower fire chance than most of the firestarters. But it does do damage, where others wouldn't. It gets the 1/4 penetration for HE, being able to pen 50mm of armor, where other CAs can only pen 32mm. So it can pen the deck armor of a lot more BBs even when uptiered, can pen ice breakers or Khabarovsk side armor. That itself doesn't offset the low fire chance. It's a balancing act. PE gets to tank 380mm shells, gets a heal and superior AP-shells, so the cost is it's HE. The big difference in playstyle is that you try to get more situations where you can use AP, not that you can use AP more by default. You try to set up ambushes, like popping up behind an island a few km away from a broadside cruiser with your AP preloaded and ready to do multiple citadels. Even dev strikes are possible. Or, as said, you use your Expert Loader a lot and hit a turning cruiser where any firestarter would have taken too long to switch ammo and the target would have been sufficiently angled to bounce.

To roughly predict where a person is heading, one needs to observe past course and speed. If you created your account today and haven't played a single battle, isn't it a bit early to already be "hopeless with KGV"? Are you talking about another account of yours? It will be difficult for others to analyze the reasons of why somehing doesn't work for another person, if they have no data and no information on what happened. I would suggest providing the reader (a) with the account concerned and (b) with a suitable replay showcasing your playstyle.

I got doubts about balancing ships around the top 5% of players, since the properties of the ships apply to random battles as well. A ship that would be balanced in capable hands might become inferior or OP among the subpar players. In 1. you intend to limit the amount of dominating ships. But it also makes ship choice in a clan difficult. Certain players perform best in certain ships. Now you might have several players performing best in the same ship, or you might have newer players, who only have one or two ships to choose from. The casual clans specifically have lots of players with only a few options. They will struggle to field a team at all, much less find a setup that works for them, if such a rule was initiated. I however like the second point you make. Cruisers are a overrepresented in CB. Teams would likely pick more BBs, if they were allowed. DDs suffer a lot in CB, since they don't bring dpm. In most metas, clans were in favor of bringing as many big ships as possible, as many BBs as possible and as few DDs as absolutely needed. The problem with balancing in WoWs seems to be that WG takes the existing ships as given, like they can only add to the status quo, not reduce it. They never removed a ship. Personally - not related to CB - I got my Smolensk and I would happily give it up and get my coal back if WG wanted to completely remove it from the game.

Indeed, it's a simple chain of one ship dominating the other one. We had the old cruisers in CB, which mostly had their roles and strengths and were used successfully: Des Moines, Moskva, Hindenburg, Zao, even Minotaur or Worcester. Then Stalingrad happened. The good competitive clans immediately got it and it was superior. Nobody could overmatch its 50mm armor and even Yamato bounced shells, so it dominated the meta. Clans who had one or two Stalingrad were superior and basically brought almost a second BB to the table. All clans needed to react to this. Soon there was a Stalingrad in every line-up. The clans reacted to that development with the IFHE-Henri. Why? Cause the Henri was dominant to most ships while not being dominated. Henri outgunned its classical counterparts Zao and Hindenburg. So these two ships were out of the game. And IFHE-Henri overmatched Stalingrad, melting it down. So the Henri countered Stalingrad while not being countered itself by any other ship. No Rock-Paper-Scissors. Then the Kremlin got released. It was even immune to IFHE-Henri. Strange ideas like IFHE-Yoshino came to mind, utterly insane if I may say so. They however were too specialized and countered by any stealthy high-DPM-cruiser. Kremlin was dominating and became the standard BB. Suddenly we had the Kleber-rush. Armor and bow-tanking was briefly overcome by sheer speed of repositioning and raw short-term dpm-power. But in the end Kleber got nerfed and Henri got nerfed. So what options were left at that point. Zao was dead, Hindenburg was dead, Mino was dead, Des Moines at least dying, Moskva inferior. At the same time, along with the Kleber-push came the Venezia. No utility, but the only ship to stop a Kleber push with raw alpha damage and good arcs. Also the only ship to pen Stalingrad and Kremlin. Did it have downsides? No, as a flanker you don't need utility and the raw damage once again made it superior to the firestarters. It also had decent AA, so that is the ingredients of a standard ship. The Hindenburg had a short come-back due to the reload-buff and the IFHE rework, which makes Hindi pen Kremlin armor. But then the Hindi was outgunned so hard by the Venezia and thanks to the fire-penalty of IFHE couldn't even offset the lower dpm starting fires. So the Venezia prevails. Now we got CVs in the game and the choice of ships is as consequential as it can be. There is no reason, no incentive to pick other ships. Even nerfing the now so popular ships would not change choice, it would only introduce an unsolvable dilemma of what line-up works against most other line-ups. Basically that means that the tactical choice of ships doesn't become a lottery, where the winner is determined mostly by what ships he uses and how they are countered, but rather by skill. So now we have: 1. Venezia, because other ships (a) cannot overmatch Kremlin and Stalingrad armor, (b) don't have the dpm to match other flankers, (c) can blap DDs and (d) have noteworthy AA. 2. Stalingrad, because (a) they make so many other ships useless, (b) can tank damage, (c) have radar in case anybody still uses a DD and (d) have good AA in a pack of two. 3. Halland, although optional, since it can provide spotting while zoning out planes. Now all the other ships are inferior. This is what happens when you mess with a well balanced T10-meta by listening to the cries of bad players for an OP toy and introduce a ship like Stalingrad setting off an avalanche of ships in a desperate yet futile attempt to restore balance. Back in Season 3 each ship had its advantages and disadvantages and the key to a successful tactic was to find the right combinations of ships and the right player for the right ship. There was no strict dominance. I hate to say it but: CB is broken. Not because of CVs, it was broken way back and it gets ever more broken and less thrilling with each season.

Wargaming has invested many hours of work into the CV-rework. Beyond reason they want that investment to to generate revenue. The origin of the word "revenue" is french and means "come back". so the money they put into the rework is supposed to come bck. That changes the perspective. Wargaming tries to force their narrative of the rework on the game and the community. They want to declare the rework was a success. One of the milestones to do so is to be able to say CVs work as intended in Clan Battles. Your or even the majorities preferences are irrelevant or even counterproductive to them, as they would dismiss the rework and make it a failed project. It would make some people at WG look bad to their superiors. So if you as a project leader have to decide if you want your project to appear successful or minimize harm to your employer at the cost of your career, that is an easy choice for a project leader. That's called "Moral Hazard" in economics.

What kind of cluster intercourse have you guys got yourself into this time? Ah, CVs of course, it had to go that way. Let's try to stay rational and dissect this phenomenon of "sudden change of clan-tag". Are some clans irritated by the prevalance of CVs in CB? They changed their clan-tag, but the clan-tags do not relate to CB. Maybe the clans don't like CVs in general. Or did they change the clan-tag just as the CB-season started? If so, why are CVs suddenly a problem. They have been in the game for 15 months. That's a long time. Irrespective of debating whether they are broken or not, shouldn't these clans have uttered that opinion for months? Why now? So some users speculated this was done out of frustration with the current meta. I agree that their motives would be stainless if they had changed their names months ago. Wasn't it obvious, CVs would some day be implemented into CB? They are either in the game or not. If one doesn't want them in CB, one should also reject them in other modes and vice versa I think most of what followed was besides the point, including the OP. Why would it be necessary to present a screenshot of clans changing their tags? To claim a dominant sentiment? That was irrelevant, one might say anecdotal. One could just start a discussion and say "I don't like the current CB-meta. What do you guys think?" If that sentiment was dominant, it should reveal itself in this discussion, no "expert opinion" needed. So what do we think about the current CB-meta? I can understand the different motives. Good CV-players have wished for seasons, that they finally can prove themselves in CB. I can truly say a good CV-player helps to not only get the CB-meta straight but also to do better in randoms. That doesn't alter the fact that a meta can be enjoyable or not, independent of success. A player can adapt to a meta, but the play can be dull. The current CBs are a bit boring. I can say that and claim for myself that I have very capable CV-players in my team. I benefit from having CVs. Still the meta is boring. What's the point of citadelling a Stalingrad at 23 km just as it accelerates out of the spawn? Isn't the spawn point supposed to be a safe zone? Now a CV can spot you within the first minute and you eat massive damage just by moving out of the spawn. So hello, Wargaming, maybe your spawn points are not suited for this meta anymore. Making clans choose between BB and CV is short-sighted. So 2% of players are CV-mains and WG wants to promote their participation by pushing out the 20% of players who are BB-mains. Great logic. It's not at all that BBs are the one thing that keeps Stalingrad on their toes in randoms and that you just made them an apex predator by removing BBs. So now each clan needs a Venezia, since it's the only thing that can counter a Stalingrad while matching a Venezia. Nice, now finally we got some dynamics back. Right? Wrong. I can perfectly flank in my Venezia, but I am spotted and shot from 23km away and the opposing team is regularly updated about my position. And while doing that I need to sync my moves with another ship for AA. There is no room for heroism, no surprise party, no "hello, here I am, is that half your hull gone?" I miss the opportunity for initiative. Whoever now blames CVs for the current meta is deceiving himself. This goes way back to the introduction of Stalingrad and then Kremlin into CB. Kremlin and Stalingrad have made the traditional 203mm CAs useless. Suddenly it was all about tanking stationary, and the dynamic positioning was gone. Then the community reacted with counters like Henri. So Wargaming nerfed the Henri into oblivion. Kremlin players laughed: "Finally I can shoot fish in a barrel again." So IFHE-Hindenburgs became a thing and then Venezia. None of all that helped getting diversity back into the game. But nobody renamed his clan-name to "ban Stalingrad" or "Kremlin go home". So now we have CVs in CB and 50mm+ armor is still a thing defining the meta. Every bit of this meta has evolved over the course of five CB seasons, over more than a year. Yet now some people point at CVs and say "this is the one thing that is causing all this upset." If anybody claims he wants a healthy competitive game mode, he imo should wish for CB rules as they were in Season 3 and earlier, before the first special ships were introduced into CB. Anything else to me seems more like "I fail to adjust to the meta, so the meta should adjust to me".

I would like to see less rather then ever more. I would like less events, less branches. I think the game accelerates into a state that is hard to keep up with for players as well as Wargaming. I would enjoy the game just as much if I wouldn't need to participate in so much stuff just to stay competitive.

@Cartman666hat hier schon einige mögliche Gründe genannt, warum dir das Schiff enttäuschend erscheint. Nur um das mal mit Daten begreifbar zu machen. Du hast unter https://wowstats.org/stats/eu/kommandant62/ ein Profil, das aktuell zuletzt im Oktober 2019 aktualisiert wurde. Es zeigt also, wie du die GC bis Oktober 2019 gespielt hast: Nun im Mai 2020, also fast 175 Gefechte später, sehen die Werte auf wows-numbers wie folgt aus: Was fällt auf? Die Winrate ist über die letzten 175 Spiele leicht gestiegen, der Schaden ist mehr als 1000 Punkte höher. Wenn man das mit den alten Gefechten abgleicht, musst du in der GC in den letzten Gefechten sogar 4000-5000 HP mehr Schaden verursacht haben. Die Frags und abgeschossene Flugzeuge sind ebenfalls gestiegen. Kurz gesagt: Die Daten zeigen das Gegenteil von dem, was du wahrgenommen hast. Du hast entweder besser gespielt oder das Schiff ist besser geworden. Es gibt also keinen Grund aus allen Wolken zu fallen und über verborgene Nerfs zu spekulieren. Du solltest dich eher freuen, dass dir die Pause nicht geschadet hat und offenbar die Werte sogar besser als zuvor sind.

Try to visualize the sequence in your head. You start, you determine where you go. The bad players will be insecure so they will want to go with the group, thus creating a weakly defended side. So you (a) don't make that same mistake and (b) compensate for others making it, if you are in reasonable distance to that flank. Just doing that you already have permanentely raised your odds. Then you visualize where the enemy DD is and when you will be spotted. SO needless to say, you need to have the circle on the map enabled, showing your detection range and plan your turn so it's finished before the enemy DDs position mirrored from your own DDs position reaches your circle. Then you start the zig zag dance away from them. Another important thing to remember, also keeping in mind what other replies refer to as the more aggressive proactive play style, is how your approach plays out when you are aggressive at the wrong time. i.e. too early, a.k.a. how not to do it. You can also visualize that sequence in your head. You are moving in, instead of turning away while still unspotted. You start shooting. Now at some point more and more enemy ships are revealing. You start feeling uncomfortable as your team is not next to you but behind you. You're getting focussed. An enemy DD is within your concealement range keeping you perma spotted. At this point you are commited. You cannot turn anymore, since your turn would give your most vulnerable broadside to the enemy ships, the fastest way to be shot to bits. You are slowly sucked into the enemy team, focussed and the game is over. Other ships have options you don't have. USN-CAs will reverse while bow-tanking, they still got firepower, while IJN-CAs can only savely use their low dpm frontal guns. RN- and italian cruisers can smoke up to disengage, you can't. So if you find yourself locked in a pushing move, you need an escape plan. Ideally you should have thought of that before you even turned into your enemy. You plan to destroy a target that is keeping you spotted, after which you can go dark and turn or, fool proof, you plan your approach with an island in the right position, so you disappear behind the island just as things are getting hot, turn behind the island unspotted and come out of the island already kiting away. So the IJN-CAs give the best results, when you have a plan at least for the worst case scenario.

I love you !!! Seriously, that is exactly the right attitude. If only all players would think like that. Anyway, just writing that, you deserve to get some decent replies. The properties of the ship dictate its play style. Let's start with the negative characteristics: - Furutaka has a large and vulnerable citadel. You do not want to catch the eye of a BB while you are turning broadside. - Furutaka has limited range on its guns. You must play it closer than you would like to. - Furutaka has slow turning guns. You need to have a plan in your head, in what position you want to start firing and towards what direction and start rotating your turrets early - Furutaka has 15s reload. You should avoid being ambushed by a DD around islands, since you might not be able to kill him before he lets loose his torps. - The torpedo arcs require giving a lot of broadside. Don't shoot them at a BB unless it just fired all guns and is on 30s reload. The positive sides are just as defining: - The Furutaka is the first heavy cruiser with 203mm guns. Old reviews on the Furutaka are slightly outdated. Wargaming changed the armor of many light cruisers, especially in mid tiers. T5 cruisers now have 13mm front and aft armor. An important feature of AP shells is that they can penetrate armor that is less than 1/14.3 of the gun caliber from any angle. So 203mm guns will penetrate 13mm armor. That makes the Furutaka the only cruiser who can citadel T5 cruisers through the nose or rear. The accuracy allows to exploit that at close to mid range. - The HE shells have a good fire chance. You can set on fire what you cannot pen with AP. - The torpedos are 8 per side, have good range and hit hard. You can use them to zone out enemies or as a last resort dev strike against BBs. - Furutaka has good speed and hydro. It can chase down DDs, if they cut off their retreat. - The rudder shift is quick and the turning circle decent. The Furutaka can kite. So what do you do with all that? You got bad range. If you want to chase enemies and shoot them, you need to be closer than 13 km to hit them. That is okay but not preferable. So at the start of the battle you want to observe your team. Don't abandon your side if you spawn at extreme positions, but if you spawn somewhere in the middle, go to the weak side. Wait for your team mates to make their move and when you can determine which flank ist going to be weaker that is where you go. The reason is simple: That side will be pushed by the enemy. So you will run away from them, use your full range of 13.8km and keep them at arms length. You go towards that flank and at a still save distance you turn your ship so you face away from the threat. Make the turn early enough so you don't get spotted in the middle of the turn, when you are vulnerable. Use the position of your own DD to mirror where the enemy DD might be so you can predict when you would get spotted. After you are facing away you are waiting for the enemy to arrive. You can even launch your torps into the direction of the enemy when you turn away, but only if you don't risk torping your own DD. I will come back to the torps soon. So you are facing away and they ideally are comming full speed towards you. You shoot angled ships with HE, broadside cruisers with AP. You need to identify the greatest threat, which usually is a BB that has set his mind to killing you. He will shoot only you. You are moving away at an angle of 35°-40°. When you see the BB shooting (either observing him through scope or observing black smoke from his guns) you make a hard turn, so his shot misses. Your movement will be like saw teeth. If you attract too much attention and too many ships focus you, you stop shooting and go dark. Wait til their slow turning turrets point another way and open fire again. If a ship is turning its guns to shoot you or switch from you to another target, it is not shooting your team and the time of the turret turning is wasting their damage potential. You don't get points for that but it will help you win. Now for torps. If the enemy is pushing at full speed, his ship will have travelled 3-5km in the time it takes your torpedos to reach their maximum range. So your torps will hit a BB that is going at an acute angle towards you, even if it is 12-14km away from you (it depends on the speed of the ship and the angle). Use that to stealth torp into the way of the push. Torps are not your primary weapon, just use them when it's free of risk. If an enemy ship is flooding, wait for it to repair and set it on perma fire. Set multiple fires on multiple ships. Wear them down. Never forget, even if big ships are easier to hit: The enemy DD is the priority target. If it is spotted, shoot it instead of bigger ships. It controls the cap zone and it keeps your team spotted. You don't want that. It's a huge part of your job to make sure that when your DD runs into their DD, theirs goes down and yours survives. If the enemy stops chasing you or even retreats, don't turn immediately. Wait until you are unspotted and then savely turn. In the late game, when BBs are not immediately threatening you, you can try to help your DDs chase down remaining DDs. Your hydro will help you to evade torps. The Furutaka is pretty fast. A DD running away will need to make a turn, the map is limited in size. So you can push him into the border or a corner and finish him. But be careful, don't do it if you have trouble finding him, or he will effectively chase you. Another option is to do a flanking move, preferably on cruisers. Load your AP and try to pop out of an island at a broadside cruiser and citadel him. And ofc, as for all ships with brutal torps: If you can get close to an enemy BB behind an island, unspotted, you can make a surprise torpedo attack. But that is highly situational. The HE-shells will do most of your damage. If you run into CVs, you are vulnerable, since the nature of a defending kiting ship is that it is rather alone and isolated. You can use DefAA instead of hydro, but whatever you choose has its price. In principle that whole playstyle remains the same for the entire IJN-CA-line. Later ships will have torpedo arcs at the back of the ship, making it saver to torp while kiting away. They will get more range and better armor, making it easier to avoid damage.

Right now. 200% You got from 01 May - 11 May. Play like there's no tomorrow.

If they do that, I want this one for global chat: https://youtu.be/p79lKeQMBPc?t=80

That's a rather unique way of adapting. I myself tend to use more signals on 100%-/200%-weekends, too and demount them after the first win. But that sort of behavior is not likely to drive Wargamings pricing calculus. Also, I can't remember who made that point before, that FXP was the easier ressource since it was used for Freemium ships only, while coal was needed for so many things in the armory. I just looked at my current grinds and it seems I would need 500k FXP just to get the uprades for my stock ships. What you gotta say about that Wargaming. It's not that I got FXP lying around for no reason. I do so since I torture myself through your A-hull nightmare.