VC381

This. The current patch has created a very nice synergy for CAs, better payoff for being aggressive plus the ideal tools to do so. Which exact combo is best is up to the player (still need to test, thank you WG for the module sale!).

Slower turret traverse is still plenty fast enough, the 1s reload does translate to a bit more DPS if you are shooting constantly. I would get it.

I think the module has promise, but only because of the possible combo with propulsion in the other slot and the higher rewards for spotting and drawing fire. Both concealment and rudder shift have diminishing returns when stacked. I think ships that can invisifire or that need to invisi-torp will still prefer total concealment (if that's what the player wants). But for other ships that are spotted as soon as they shoot anyway, if you have CE and camo it might be good enough without that last 10% reduction. I think also a lot of the new high tier maps have much more island cover than the older ones, so cruisers can use that to sneak into range instead of concealment and then have the benefit of being fast stopping and hard turning which matters more between those messy island groups. What this module would also allow you to do is keep shooting instead of having to pull your punches and lean on your concealment to survive. You might still bite it in the end, but overall the payoff could be worth it in damage done, enemies distracted and the new spotting and potential damage XP. Top ship IMO for this module is Kutuzov, allowing you to take propulsion and not out-run your own smoke without sacrificing rudder shift. If RN keep smoke and are designed to be aggressive I would think the same logic applies. US depends on your priorities, ambush and DD hunting might still benefit more from concealment but if you like going Pensacola style that could work on NO and her tiny turning circle. No high tier experience with the other two.

I'm totally on board with this part, I've always been against loadouts missing a plane type (except on small escort carriers where it kind of makes sense). But the point about knowing when and where to strike, picking the right targets etc. applies equally to strike and AS. The flip side for AS is you don't need to constantly cover everyone with your fighters, only deny those key strikes that can swing the battle. Of course if you can do both that eliminates the problem, but that's an IJN vs USN balance issue not a strike vs AS balance issue. What about 3/1/2 Shokaku?

Will try as well, trying to grind credits for too many different things at the moment.

BTW the new spotting rewards and potential damage really work wonders for aggressive cruiser play. Yesterday in a T8 cruiser I made a stupid navigation choice on one of those maps where the islands have really bad "no return" points and got completely obliterated after doing only about 10k damage. Thing is, since I was aggressive from the start I drew a lot of fire and spotted DDs, I made 1k base XP and didn't actually lose money (T8 repair cost no premium). I was really surprised, before 5.12 that same game would have been 400 base XP and -100k credits.

I know it's tempting to believe that damage=contribution but if you think about it, if you do 100k damage and the enemy CV does 90k (both strike), you basically cancelled each other out more or less same as if you were both AS. The actual contribution is the difference in damage between the two carriers, and the timing and impact of that damage (e.g. early DD kills or cap spotting denial). Strike can even do more damage and lose, if they are just farming damage on secondary targets while AS controls the key fights that decide the game. In that sense the damage argument was always wrong, even before the rewards buffs. Now, I enjoy playing strike, because I like bombing/torpedoing ships and I find it fun. But I'll try it both ways because the argument for viability is not that clear cut. Now the rewards are in favor as well it makes sense.

Weird ahistoric mix of elements but probably (unfortunately) no better way to balance it still looks the part, plus the new Akatsuki model is accurate and very nice.

Did you stack the rudder shift upgrades or use the opportunity to combo acceleration and new rudder shift module? I figure the latter could be very fun for total mobility but haven't tried (can't afford all those modules...). Also, you say the loss of concealment didn't hurt but do you have CE?

Can I say again, why do all you people need/want your highly trained captains on low tier ships? If you are just playing those ships for FUN, because you like them, to chill out from high tier, whatever, all you need are a couple of "comfort" skills like EM or Vigilance, none of which are higher than 3rd row. I'm happy playing low tier ships with 3 point captains, there is no point having more. Also, if you were a highly trained and successful naval commander that just qualified for your country's newest and greatest ship, what would your reaction be when asked to briefly go back and command a rusty tin-can better suited to more junior officers?

Just to point out, low tier ships are fully functional with a 3 point captain, which you can get for 25 doubloons or a single good game with prem+flag. If you're just playing for fun, you don't need to move your 15-point Shima captain to your Isokaze, unless you only care about seal-clubbing (which you will do anyway due to skill difference). For mid tier ships 6 point captain, again very easy to get, is plenty. 4th and 5th row captain skills are nice to have but hardly crucial until about T8 where you need every edge you can get or you start losing money. But of course, we're talking about playing low tiers for fun, so again you really don't need the massive captain skill difference to be competitive.

*Yawn* this again, really? US fighters just got two buffs, one for more ammo the other for earning better rewards from spotting and plane kills. I think we need to see how that plays out, I'm gonna give it a try. I can agree that the loadouts need tweaking (I'm not a fan of completely missing a plane type). But the DBs themselves are pretty solid as they are, especially T8+.

Aoba is good at kiting (and trains you how to use the rest of the IJN line). Konigsberg is similar in a way due to her turret layout. As others have said, cover and situational awareness are your friends. I like to drive straight towards an island then turn half around before coming out, that way I'm close enough to scout/spot and shoot but not trapped having to show broadside to turn and run if things go south. Stay at a range that best compromises between your ability to hit things and your ability to dodge return fire. Only practice can teach you that. Always zoom in on each BB in range in turn and see who they are pointing their guns at. Wiggle and dodge only when you see them shoot at you so as not to waste speed. Also remember to change speed when shot at, it's the single most reliable way to mess with someone's aim. BBs especially at those tiers quickly get bored of shooting something they can't hit, or are not good at changing targets due to slow turret traverse. Bear that in mind and time your shots to minimise risk. On the other hand, being a nuisance/distraction that knows how to kite and dodge can waste a lot of enemy BB time, save your team a lot of damage and make them tunnel vision and go out of position chasing you. But this doesn't work when you're surrounded so always know where the enemy is and plan your escape route. In summary, it's hard work keeping track of all the things that might kill you but it is possible and worth it once you find your comfort zone to be semi-aggressive and make an impact on the game. You say cruisers are DD hunters and AA escorts. They are more than that. In the BB meta they are actually the main DPS, so make sure someone is always on fire, always under pressure from a side they don't expect. It adds up and makes people make mistakes. Late game you are also substitute DD for closing off those crucial last caps when the enemy BBs are out of position.

I can see your point and I also loved the Pensacola despite the concealment. But most of the cruisers that use stealth heavily do so either to be in Radar range (or very close to it) when the DDs eventually spot them so they can reply and know they will find something, or to sneak around and position for a devastating AP or torp salvo (IJN mainly). I admit those are kind of one-shot "tricks" and yes once you start firing you'll most likely be detected anyway (very few cruisers can comfortably invisifire) but it's nice to be able to get a bit closer and still know you can vanish when you stop shooting. For me finally getting concealment expert on my IJN cruisers was a real "wow" moment but when I took a different captain out in my Atago for training I was able to function just fine without the maxed concealment. So probably, for a group of cruisers it would be viable to pick the new rudder shift mod but only while having a 15-point captain with CE. This will give them *slightly* better concealment than a cruiser with the module but no 15 point captain (-12% from CE vs -10% from the module) and still much better rudder shift. It's a shame those modules cost so much, going to be a pricey experiment...

Sorry, I'll cut down on the absolutism but I will fully admit I'm after some degree of historical realism here. I'm certainly willing to accept things like time compression to make the game a more fun pace but I'm not a fan of arbitrary game mechanics (in this case made up armor values) causing completely unintuitive tactics to be the norm. Maybe I exaggerate a little but it's still the case that some BBs can advance into fire while surviving a very long time and doing a lot of damage in the process.

Hahaha... Wut?! Ignore the DBs, sure go ahead, your BBs will love you after they take 30k direct damage + 4 fires they can't put out if the Lex player checked for repair first. Sure a good Shokaku should outplay a strike Lex but it isn't so clear cut. The US DBs are tough and IJN fighters have low ammo. Aside from a very good strafe (relies more on Lex player being stupid than anything else) it's actually quite hard to tackle the strike force with 2 x 4 fighters. With the ammo buff and now rewards change I will try 2/0/2 Lex. I think between spotting and denying the enemy plus the damage 2 DB squads can put out it could be quite respectable.

Aoba at least gets more RoF for her trouble but I see your point. If the ship overall is well suited to longer ranged combat then the turret traverse should not be much issue, thanks for the explanation!

Yes and no. Minimising target is fine but being essentially immune while charging is neither realistic nor good for gameplay. IMO there is no problem with "camping" BBs, my problem is BBs that can charge where they like without caring, dominating the middle of the map that should be the playground of the DDs and CAs. BBs were designed to fight at long range and while it can be frustrating when people on your team stay so far back they can't contribute I don't like the obsession with turning the game into a point-blank carnage mess.

T6: anything really because at those ranks the skill level is so low you could carry in a T5 ship. Last season I took Kongo for the T5-6 and found BBs generally carry quite well up to middle ranks. I think I'll take Warspite this time. T8: Nagato worked very well for me last season and I now have Amagi so that seems like a good idea. If I grind the 15th captain point, I would also take Shokaku.

But only with the range module, which any other cruiser at T9+ can equip as well. Her base range is nothing to write home about, it's second worst.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense but could make for some interesting combos. The answer from Mr.Conway is dumb though because he answered the question "what will you do to buff US CAs?" with "give them a module they don't need and probably will never use that happens to be a great buff to some of the other cruisers instead". I hold to my point that their underperforming is to do with the meta, not the ships themselves. Buffing the ships won't solve the problem. Currently the cruisers that perform well are those that have the tools to deal with (burn down) battleships i.e. some combination of long range, strong HE and fast firing. That's simply not a healthy meta especially in the context of introducing battleships that don't need cruisers to back them up when pushing against DDs. We basically end up with BBs fighting DDs in caps and cruisers sitting back-line firing HE trying to be useful without getting killed. It's completely backwards. If there was a cruiser or cruiser/destroyer only game mode I would take a US cruiser all day every day. I'm not asking for that, all we need is NOT 5v5 BBs every game (I guess that's the current cap or there would be more) so that there are places on the map cruisers can push, flush out DDs, duel other cruisers etc. because that's what US cruisers do, and do very well.

OK, guess I just wasn't paying attention. Well, +1 for them listening to the community but my own personal opinion is that's a shame, would have been a good change.

So... just saw the patch notes. Has this armor change been quietly dropped?

If Amagi and her 9.8" belt is T8 material the Hood "could" be too. Don't forget her belt is inclined and she has a turtledeck too, up close she should be pretty solid (plunging fire not so much). The problem would be the guns, AA, fire control etc. So she would need a substantial refit to work at that tier. That's why I WANT her to be T7, so we can have her in a historic appearance. All this really depends on the choices they make for how the whole line should feel. I doubt we'll get a mixed battleship/battlecruiser line and a pure battleship is more likely, plus Hood is easier to milk as a premium.

Partial line like IJN DDs 5 - Hawkins (it is a late WWI design, contemporary to Emerald, Omaha and Furutaka, it would be fine there) 6 - York 7 - Kent (early fit if required for balance) 8 - Norfolk (late fit, or HMS London refit) And no projects necessary although Surrey could fill T8 instead.