HMS_Kilinowski

This new map is still an enigma to me. Also I see lots of players not taking very smart positions, me included. My impression so far is that both teams tend to form clockwise lemming trains, similar to the Neighbors map, even in domination mode. Positioning is a bit like in Crash Zone Alpha, you use the long islands for radar cruisers, or russian ships to cover flanks, although the general openness of the map makes it a bit difficult to stay protected. What are your experiences with "Northern Waters"? How is it supposed to be played?

Monaghan torp build is utterly pitiful. Monaghan gunboat build is pitiful. Monaghan is pitiful. The only thing it is good for is if at the end of the day you are missing 200 XP on your daily missions and want to spam two bots with torps in a coop to be done with it. I rather rely on IFHE. You don't lose out on dpm while switching ammo type and quite often you can send them off with a perma fire as they go dark. Althoug I might skip IFHE sfterthe rework and then AP certainly is a thing to consider. I don't get the idea of a sweet spot. Is torping with torps faster than 65 kts in any way less efficient? At most I can say that the new module is ineffective on slow torps while being obsolete on fast torps. It's an irony of the design, that it punishes slow torps with low gain while rewarding already fast torps with even more speed. But then again the whole mix of skills that are relative and such that are absolute doesn't make sense. On on hand we got a turret traverse skill that is absolute and makes fast torps turn at the speed of light, while having low relative effect on slow turrets, a Survivability Expert skill that is absolute, a TA skill that is absolute, and now we have skills that are relative, like the turret traverse mod and the torp speed mod. WG is just trolling noobs into making poor choices.

The accuracy seems only a minor issue on paper. In reality shells scatter over an area that is the relative increase in dispersion squared. If you add the modifiers of (a) not having Aiming System Mod 1 (-5%), the enemy ship having (b) Concealment System Mod 1 (+5%) and (c) a camo (+4%), the total dispersion e.g. of Gearing at max range may vary from 92m to 107m. That is a difference of 107/92 = 1,16, i.e. 16% in one dimension. The area of impact increases by 35%. So at a certain range 1/ 1,36 = 74% of your shells hit the target compared to shootinga target without camo and concealment and having Aiming Mod yourself. Even if you take the enemy build as given, i.e. concelament and camo, you still have a dispersion of 107m stock vs. 102m with Aiming System Mod, which still means that about 10% of your shells are missing. Ofc that applies to max range, so in duels I guess you are fine. It's even worse. Being a Somers owner myself, I find the newish random dispersion of torpedos within a spread pretty annoying. A RN-DD can hit a single torp perfectly on target, while a Somers has no center torp at all and you cannot even predict where the outer torpedos will be heading. So Somers can not reliably torp even a stationary target on the nose. In a meta of bow tanking russian CAs and BBs, that is a huge downside. Gearing even has 21mm of center side plating. So after the IFHE rework, when non-IFHE-Daring might be more common, their shells will no longer pen Gearing there The "over the top" is precisely the reason to spec into this mod in the first place. Why would I take it on a ship with sluggish torps? It's a relative increase, it doesn't make sense. On fat torps I get more than 4 kts buff and on slow torps it'S around 2kts and hardly makes any difference. Don'T bother putting it on your Black or Sims or even plane torps. Put it on your subnautical rockets.

Then the description is a bit misleading. If it affects cooldown, wouldn't it be somewhat effective on DDs, as they can get the burst dmg more often? Together with MAA you can kill at least one plane every cycle and you get more cycle. Especially if one was to snipe planes, one wouldn't want the skill to be on cooldown if the planes return. At some point while reading this I got seizures.

Das auf jeden Fall. Es wirft auch einen Schatten auf das Forschungsbüro. Wenn das Freischalten der Module nicht künftig schwieriger bzw. kostspielig wäre, gäbe es nämlich keinen Grund die Spieler hier auszubremsen. Das ist zwar nicht spielerfreundlich, aber man kann es Wargaming auch nicht verbieten. Nicht ganz ideal ist darüber hinaus, dass Spieler, die in den kommenden 2 Monaten ein T10-Schiff freischalten, bislang keine Information haben, wie sie künftig das LM freischalten. Sollen sie eine Linie zurücksetzen, weil das LM nun RP kostet oder brauchen sie andere Ressourcen? Gerade diese ewige Geheimniskrämerei hat in der Vergangenheit für viele Missverständnisse gesorgt und auch bei WG war man dann von negativen Reaktionen überrascht, wenn den Spielern bestimmte Pläne als unabänderlich präsentiert wurden.

Dann erschließt sich mir nicht, warum die Missionen bereits mit Update 0.9.1 entfernt werden mussten, wo es offensichtlich keine Überschneidungen gibt.

I think so, too. The Asashio might even benefit from the change. Up to now Aiming System Mod 1 was the no-brainer in slot 3. Personally, I would still prefer it over Torp Tubes Mod 1, as the Asashio should not sacrifice its ability to finish off low hp DDs, and a lot of that ability is due to their laser accurate and tightly packed trajectories. Never the less, dedicated torp lovers, who would deem firing their guns as a sacrilege, now got a sidegrade. Together with TA, which I guess most Asashio players skilled into, you get 75kts torps with 16km range. Even with the new Torpedo Lookout System, the target only gets 9.2s reaction time. That is still better than Shima 12km torps. So where's the twist? BBs giving up detection are now visible 1.2km - 1.7km earlier. That gives you more time to move your ship into a better torp position, torp a BB maybe just before it disappears behind an island and helps your team set some perma fires after you flooded a target and it tries to disengage to heal back. So there is a risk you will land a couple of torp hits less, but also a chance to hit targets that you might otherwise hit from a bad angle or not at all.

Mein ursprünglicher Eindruck war, dass die LMs Zug-um-Zug ausgetauscht werden, die neuen LM also nun mit 0.9.1 ins Arsenal wandern. Ist es beabsichtigt, dass man LMs derzeit auf keinem Weg freischalten kann?

Yes, sorry, I missed that. I just want to explain myself, why I reacted like that: We as a community need to pick our fights carefully. We want Wargaming to listen to our criticism, to understand we act in the best interest of our game and their product, as much as both are the same. That is based on WG-employees not thinking that we complain all day about minor stuff. It annoys me to read topics about e.g. a life raft being in the wrong place. If they think we just want to wear them down to give us free stuff or if they think criticism is just basic noise, they will never listen or stop listening, where they listened so far. Already my impression is that WG often tries to sedate us with prepared marketing statements and get us to accept their moves rather than reflecting on the valid concern we have on the quality, balance and longevity of WoWs. I sometimes feel, we have lost our rapport, we don't reach those ears anymore. That is why I want us to reduce the noise to make our sound criticism heard again. On the topic itself: I think the new type of missions is great. It reminds me of the Halsey campaign, where you can take the shortcut if you play well, but everyone has the back door of completing the campaign by a longer grind. It's great if missions are not only done investing time, but rather performance, tho the missions themselves are imo too hard to rely on them. You will likely complete some of them while doing the grindy ones. By the time you are done with the performance-missions, you will likely have 80% of the grind done anyway. Another point of criticism is that some of the missions will incentivize players to rather fulfil the mission than win the battle at its most efficient way. "He is broadside, but I need the fires."

You need 4 missions in each directive to proceed and there is 9 missions in each directive to choose what suits you. If you feel the bar is too high for you to complete certain missions "in one battle", you still have 6 missions left to choose from. It's only consequential that players failing to complete a mission that takes skill, need to compensate doing the leg work. Please clarify how this actually prevents players from finishing the directives and forces them to buy the ship for real money. On a general note: Yes, Wargaming has a habit of bad and even very bad choices. This is not one of them. I suggest you and we all save our energy for when it really matters. I get tired of seeing pitchforks raised for every minor bull-excrement and when WG really messes up, everyone complains loud but briefly and eventually settles with it. It's inauthentic, cheap and it provokes nothing.

Flint und Black wurden und werden schon noch gekauft, aber eher von den mittelmäßig aktiven Spielern. Die kratzen so über die Jahre auch ihre 10k Stahl zusammen und mit Rabatt-Bon reicht'S dann eben gerade für eines von beiden Schiffen. Sieht man auch im Spiel. Früher waren Black und Flint ja Seltenheiten, Hingucker und man wusste, da steckt definitiv ein guter Spieler drin. Heute ist es eher das Gegenteil. Gerade aus diesem Grund macht es ja auch Sinn, günstigere Stahlschiffe für mittlere Stufen anzubieten, damit alle Spieler mit Stahl was anfangen können. Insofern, schade, weil sich für Stahl wieder recht teure Schiffe ankündigen, also kein Ersatz. Neustrashimy ist, wie schon Flint, recht anspruchsvoll zu spielen. Kein dpm-Monster, sondern ein chirurgischer Allrounder. Die Neustrashimy ist den meisten Gegnern unterlegen. Also braucht sie einen Spieler, der sein Temperament im Griff hat, zurückstecken und den Heal ausschöpfen kann. Das bedarf einer vorausschauenden Spielweise und daran fehlt es bei vielen Spielern. Wer genug Stahl für die Neustrashimy und darunter hatte, der hat sich wohl lieber gleich Bourgogne, Stalingrad oder Somers gekauft. Ich habe Stalingrad und seit einigen Wochen Somers. Beides macht für mich mehr Sinn, weil diese Schiffe auch in Clangefechten genutzt werden. Bourgogne wird, mit 32mm-Panzerung, zu schnell zerstört. Clangefechte auf anderen Stufen als T10 sind eher selten. Deshalb wird T10 immer eine Priorität sein für die aktiveren Spieler.

This topic is imo symptomatic of the attitude that leads to these steamrolls in the first place. As soon as the odds are slightly against us, we say "this is lost" and want to get a new chance in a different battle. I see players tryingto find the CV instead of returning to defend the base, cause "this is lost, might as well get some damage". I even see this sometimes in Clan Battles. And I don't like it. The second a player has given up, he starts playing worse. It doesn't happen very often, but I occasionally see games that are turned around. The ones where I was part of the turnaround are still some of the best battles in my memory. So no, no more acts of mercy! Get your crap together, put on your best carry pants and give us your best shot. There's a lesson to be learnd for life.

It's a stupid build, but since I thought about it I am fascinated by the idea of 148mm HE penetration. So as long as it's gonna last: https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PBSB510&modules=1111&upgrades=114322&commander=PCW001&skills=102843393&ar=100&consumables=122 IFHE Thunderer, the one to give CV-flight-decks the finger.

How could it possibly be more crowded? If there was no rule to make the next pick, ten people would be guessing and nobody would post pictures.

Come on, guys, it's really not that hard. It obviously is the area of the top left cap on the map Ring. How is this community ever gonna get map awareness?

I reset twice so far and finished one regrind. It's a questionable feature, I admit, as the rewards are hardly worth it. If you want to freeXP your way through the line, you will take IJN gunboats, not play them at all for 6 months, wait for each bonus and reset the line 3 times to get the RP for e.g. Ohio. Ohio then will "only" cost you 2M FreeXP and ~40M for rebuying the ships once at the end. That's pretty expensive, given the coal price for T10 ships in the armory. A T10-ship isn't worth double the price of a T9 ship. So personally I only do the regrind at all if there is a bonus. I also only think a regrind is worth it, if you take lines that are at least enjoyable to play and you don't have other unfinished lines, that are a priority. On my account. e.g. I still have open lines, german DDs, italian, RN-CA and lots of unfinished T8s and T9s. Basically I reset the IJN-gunboats and RN-DDs out of curiosity how the feature works. First thing I noticed, it's not a binary choice to either freeXP or play the line, you can skip a tier you don't like or an upgrade and still play a good part of the grind. So currently I skip to T6, cause WG still hasn't fixed the T4-CVs and you just can't play DDs effectively, if smoke is the only option to be temporarily unspotted. You can still have an impact on the game, helping your team to win, but your personal XP-gains are not worth it. So the fun starts at T6. I used the Savage Battles to buy me some 10-point captains for the mid-tier ships. They stay on the ship, cause regrinds would be insane if you had to do all the retraining again for captains. I also deliberately chose the lines, because I got a lot of perma camos on them. A regrind for a line where you don't have a perma camo for the T8 and T9 is imo insane. So the chosen line must be a line that a) is fun to play, b) still works in the given meta, c) doesn't take a lot of XP (rather DDs than BBs), d) doesn't need you to spend excessive amounts of FreeXP on must-have upgrades (e.g. B-hull on high tier BBs), e) that you have lots of perma camos for and f) you have a lot of time to grind. So the ships should not be needed in competitive modes while grinding. One can see that list is quite restrictive and the reward is hardly worth it. It might have been, if there was no T10-ships for FreeXP. But now the Hayate is coming for FreeXP. The price is still unannounced but it definitely will be way less than the 2-4M FreeXP players spend on the Ohio.

Punkte kannst du nicht mehr bekommen. Das Schiff ist nur noch da, um uns übrigen mit dem Schinken vor der Nase rum zu wedeln, weil uns jemand für blöde genug hält, doch noch schwach zu werden und unser sauer verdientes Geld für ein paar Pixel rauszurücken. Dass da Neueinsteiger gerade Spielerrang xy erreichen, dieses schicke Feature sehen und sich über etwas freuen, was völlig unerreichbar ist, ist für den Urheber eher nebensächlich.

You see what happens, Wargaming? Now we gotta explain to this poor soul who just came back to the game, that all the fancy dock and Puerto Rico thing is just not a an option for him anymore but just there to lure the rest of us into spending doubloons to buy the ship and inadvertently taunt him. That will really impress this individual and convince him to spend more time in this game in the future. Marketing at it's best.

- Grinds with deadlines. It's not work. Let players do their hobby at their favorite pace. - Bad players, specifically having to watch them commit the most obvious mistakes and losing games that could have easily be won. It makes me wish I could get remote access to their PC and take control of their ship. - I call it the "WoWs Cassandra Complex": Warning bad players of imminent threats, getting told to "stop writing" (in other words) and watch them being blapped. - Bad players who have been bad for thousands of battles and still can't even get the their basic play together. - Detonation flags, a flag you need to spend ressources on, just to prevent a random event from happening, is just abusive. - DD in T7 and higher who get detonated. - Lemming trains. Wasn't fascisms enough already? You people never start thinking for yourself? - Losing streaks. After 19 losses out of 23 you start thinking "it's not them, it's me". - Enemy CV who start with rocket planes. - Friendly CVs who don't start with rocket planes. - WG staff explaining that a thing the community brought to their attention was fine and working as intended, when a bat could see it was not. - An unnamed person asking me if I could pause my "child game" to help in the kitchen. - People who think the ingame chat is the right place to rant about immigration but can't even write a correct sentence in their native language. Oh, the humanity. - Div mates commenting the minutiae of their game experience. Female hiking groups in trains, drinking prosecco out of plastic champagne glasses are less annoying. I know you're gonna rape that cruiser where the sun don't shine. It's not that big a deal. - Whales telling me that since WG is selling a T2 ship for 5€, a T10 ship for 200€ is a bargain. I don't know how you earn your money, but don't dare calling it work then. - Players who ping me after I killed all enemies in my part of the map and complain in chat about me camping. Imagine, those black ships on the map once were red. - That one brillliant mind who thought sneaking behind the enemy team and torping them with 20km Shima torps was a touch of genius. - (Most likely) you. Why did you do that? You know exactly what I mean. How could you even for a second think, that would work? Can't you do it like that one guy I am not gonna name, who just complains about MM and rage quits every second game? Don't argue with your bladder.

As @MrWastee already said, the ships might be significantly more expensive for coal, when they reappear. One of our clan members even bought one of these ships just two days ago, knowing it would be moved to coal. So he obviously doesn't feel conned at all, but thinks he now makes a better deal than people who will buy it in the future. I can understand you might have made other plans for your steel, had you known these ships would be available for coal. But you made a good deal. If I had the steel right now, I would spend it on Black. The steel price of Black is about equivalent to a coal price of 120k-140k. A Georgia costs 224k. You need to get that idea out of your head, that steel is better than coal. Both are ressources, both are limited. Yes, you get more coal, but the prices also reflect that. The whole hype of steel is just due to the Stalingrad, which was OP at the time it got released. So people thought steel is gonna be the ressource to buy rare OP ships, while coal would be for the pleb versions. That simply is wrong. Smolensk is as OP as a ship can be, it's coal. Thunderer, Georgia, Jean Bart and Musashi are all amazing ships, for coal. On the other hand Neustrashimy is a steel ship, but more like Yoshino, a ship for certain people who know how to handle it, not an overall superior design. You get more coal, but you also need it for buying commanders, ship modules and other stuff. So I would not make the mistake of feeling cheated. Frankly, I envy you.

No guys, really, something fishy is going on here. I just was in a coop batte and there was this strange DD that nearly torped me. Nothing new about that, I admit. Players do that a lot, right? But then at some point that DD unloaded all his torps into an island blocking the predicted way to a BB. That is not human behavior. I checked the account and this one was created 6 weeks ago but had 4600 coop battles, a Smolensk, Puerto Rico and even Missouri. Even 180 random battles with a 61% winrate mostly in T10. But then a K/D ratio in coop of 1.15. Any half decent player can easily do k/d of 3. The name is currently rank 26 in the Hall of Fame. The name is definitely not random. These things just don't add up for me. If I had to take a guess, I would say these are manually created accounts, likely rerolls. The original name indicates it is not the same phenomenon as the Königsberg-bots we saw during the paypal-recruiting thingy. The person who created them is trying to level them using some sort of bot program. The program is written to work for coop games. It's not efficient, any human would do better XP/min, even more so one who manages purple on T10. Also I don't think these bots primarily aim at the Hall of Fame. I rather think the HoF reveals these accounts in a way that was not intended by the account creator.

Hard choice. How about a quick pros & cons list: Jean Bart: + a ship that can surprise you and your enemies; an adventure + decent AA for its tier and class, will mean extra XP and credits from plane kills + T9 premiums have the highest credit multiplier. great ship for grinding credits + works well with a typical captain for french tech-tree BBs, good for retraining - 380mm guns means switching ammo very conscious and alert - needs lots of premium consumables, which increases cost Smolensk: + overpowered, if that is what one is looking for + T10 is the tier mostly used in competitive modes; Smolensk is useful in these modes + T10 premium ships have low service cost, allowing to play without losses, even with a standard account + certain missions and directives require a high number of main gun hits. Smolensk does them even better than Minotaur + same for missions with fires + point and shoot - point and shoot, a bit boring/monotonous to play - extremely squishy; misplay is immediately punished - slightly game breaking ship, good from an ego perspective, bad for the game - people hate the ship and by implication you as its player; you will get focussed for spite and insulted occasionally - support ship, depends on team mates to reach its full potential - limited earning potential - needs a dedicated captain (might change depending on changes in the russian cruiser line), not really a captain trainer All that said, I would choose Smolensk, if you want to have all possible options for clan battles. One day, hopefully we won't see several Smolensks in one battle and this ship will complement a good team line-up, rather than sitting in smoke and pinging each other for "intelligence data". I think it's just good to have the option of this meme ship, to get some mission chains done faster. I would however choose Jean Bart instead, if you run out of credits a lot. I find it boring, when I need to farm credits and would have only one ship to play over and over. It's better to have several ships, all with good credit multiplier, so you have some variation and a more interesting game experience. I also would recommend the Jean Bart, if you want a ship that makes you a better player. Smolensk is not all that challenging, you either get the hang of it or not. The Jean Bart is a tool to learn BB-play, cause you get all the options you need to ambush and surprise enemies, it enables you to do much more than sit bow in and press your fire button every half a minute. Jean Bart inspires growth as a player. tl;dr Smolensk will make you play better. Jean Bart will make you a better player.

It's not so much what something means to the observer but more what the intention is. If a number is a symbol for ethical supremacy that could be an issue. If 1453 e.g. stands for establishing religious dominance, that might be a fact unknown to us. If there was a clan [88] or [1933] I would be rather sceptical.

That's exactly the point. I too, when I started, I couldn't focus on my shots and at the same time realize what was happening on the map. Yet after thousands of battles, one should have developed a rough sense of what is going on and how this is going to turn out in the end. You can guess what is going to end in defeat pretty early and still react to that. It's however not trivial. But then again often I see an entire team acting like nothing happens while their base is being taken. They get that warning sound for 2 min and keep moving away. And, as you describe, there are players who play like survival was a key objective. There is no open sea where one can escape and live happily ever after. You lose, end of story. I respect that you try your best, tho you feel you fail. It's okay to fail, if you fail making a consious but wrong choice. As long as you can comprehend that mistake, process it in your head, and learn from it, it is worth doing it. Best example: Most of us, ignoring good advice, went through the channel on Two Brothers a couple of times, til they reached their own conclusion that it doesn't work for them. Every battle is lost by dozens of wrong choices by your team mates and a couple of wrong ones by yourself. Your teams you cannot change, but identifying your wrong descisions is key to improvement. For you specifically, I recommend taking it slower. Play in lower tiers, until you win more than 50% of your battles and then gradually move up the tiers. You played 332 battles and your average tier is 6.9. You're pushing yourself too hard. I understand many missons are designed for T5+ and the rewards are tempting. They almost lure players into playing at higher tiers. To learn, you need to be patient. It's a phenomenon in many things. Sushi Chefs just learn to cook rice for the first year of their apprenticeship. Musicians are playing scales up and down. People learning Martial Arts start with doing a simple punch over and over to reach perfection. Everybody wants to jump right into the hard stuff. Be patient, it will pay off in the long run.

I don't have a spreadsheet. Just look what the trend line looks like, when you exclude the period from this christmas to now.