Verence196

What you experienced wasn't an insult, but a threat. A very different thing. Even though I'm not long in WoWS myself, I've never had anything even remotely similar happen to me.I would expect Wargaming to take it seriously. If Hanszeehock, as a supertest coordinator, has any power to influence this, I'd send him the screenshot he asked for if I were you.

They haven't said. At least not to my knowledge. Anyways, the IJN DDs aren't coming in this patch (at least they're not in the preview notes), which means they're not due until October at the earliest. I'd just buy the Fubuki now, and enjoy it at it's current tier for as long as it lasts. =)

Nice and informative post, Allied_Winter. Good on you. =)

But you very rarely need to go fully broadside - especially not in a New Mex, which has a very nifty turret arrangement. It allows you to maintain significant angling while still bringing all guns to bear on a target. And German BBs really are very good at extremely short range - therefore you should try to avoid getting into such ranges when sailing against them, which is yet another reason not to go full broadside. =)

That's really not got anything to do with it. The all-or-nothing just describes the layout of the armor, not the weight. Contemporary IJN and US - and German, for that matter - BBs tended to weigh roughly the same. The question was rather whether to use that weight for thicker armor, more machinery or heavier guns. Historically the US navy prioritised armor over speed for their BBs until the design of the North Carolina, and their speed in game is pretty much correct. The same goes for the IJN ships, as far as I know. You really should consider the speed of the IJN ships as their means to help decide when and where to fight - as was indeed the original point of giving ships speed instead of armor. A US BB is better protected, and can therefore handle a fight better than their IJN adversaries. They don't need the speed as much. Try to turn the thing on its head. If you were sailing a weakly armored ship - be it a battleship, a destroyer or a cruiser - without any means to choose when or where to fight more powerful ships, then the game would be pretty much unplayable for you. As it is, balance is fairly decent. In any case, I've never really found it very difficult to get into combat with a US BB, even though it's slow. You just have to plan where you're gonna sail a bit more closely. And if your cruisers get sunk before you can help them, that really is the fault of the cruisers for not sailing with a team. Solo suiciding is sadly fairly common in this game. =)

It's not the +/-2 in and of itself that is the problem. It's got more to do with the frequency. If you were bottom tier just as often as you were top tier, then it wouldn't be a big issue. But, due to the current MM system, in many cases you're not. The problem really kicks off at T5, and only gets a bit smaller at T6 - at both of which you're bottom tier way more often than not. When you're reaching T5 for the first time, you're just emerging from the circus of the lower tiers, and are still really learning to play the game. (I've barely reached T7 myself, and I still have much to learn.) Ironically, it's only when you reach T7 - by the time of which you should have improved significantly - that the MM starts becoming noticeably less punishing. In short - veteran players may not have too much trouble battling a T7 while sailing a T5. Getting hit by T7s in two thirds (or more) of your games when you're just learning to sail a T5 is another matter entirely. I have no problem seeing how seemingly getting insta-killed in battle after battle, without really having a chance to learn the ropes of how to sail, can really take all the fun out of the game for new players.

Agreed.Which is why you need a fundamental rework of game mechanics, in order to prompt players into engaging in teamwork. Players need to see - on the screen, while playing, in real time - when they are helping the team.

I don't think the heart of the problem is simple class-specific mechanics, such as DD stealth and so forth. It's much more fundamental: World of Warships has no real mechanics for rewarding teamwork, beyond simple survival - and that can be hard to learn, especially if few other players are actually engaging in teamwork themselves. Notser has focused on this issue in some of his more recent vids, and many of the suggestions below are lifted from these. There are no mechanics in the game supporting such teamworking activities as: Damage tanking by BBs Currently there is very little incentive for BBs to sacrifice hitpoints to cover the team. Until such sacrifices are more obviously rewarded, many BB captains are going to avoid doing it. Spotting by DDs Just looking at enemy ships isn't usually much fun. Spotting by CVs Although, as has pointed out, any mechanic that encourages CVs to perma-spot enemy DDs (which rely on stealth for gameplay, and have no or few means of combating aircraft) is fraught with danger. It might easily destroy all fun in playing destroyers. A mechanic such as plane fuel might counter this problem. Providing AA cover by CAs and CLs Not strictly true - you do get exp for shooting down enemy planes - but the reward is fairly low, especially when considering you have to give up sailing around shooting at other ships (the main reason people play the game in the first place), in order to hang around friendly BBs and CVs, well outside your own ideal combat range. In short - providing AA cover is boring, and something should be done to rectify that. ​ If Wargaming really want to improve teamwork - and I sincerely hope they do - they need to look at finding ways of making teamwork rewarding and fun, beyond waiting for players to figure it out for themselves. You need improved exp and credit rewards for teamwork activities to make them worthwhile for players grinding a line You need some form of instant feedback on your teamwork performance while playing, in order to make for more instant gratification - waiting until the end of the match to find out how you did is not gonna do the trick. You need to provide something like ribbons for enemies spotted, damage tanked, assisted kills etc You need something like a running damage counter showing accumulated damage done to ships spotted by you

There's also a question of shell design - something we haven't really touched upon yet, and which I know too little about to be of much use. Was the AP cap or other design element much improved in the 130? In fact - what was the reason to replace the 6-inch guns with 5-inch guns to begin with? My guess is that the apparent higher penetration capacity some are experiencing with the 130 is purely down to the shell arc - the 152 flies in a greater curve, thus hitting the armored sides of enemy ships at a greater angle, which again increases the effective armor thickness and prevents penetration. If you fire at short range, where the curve is less pronounced - or make better use of the curve, hitting the deck instead of armored belt - the 152 should citadel more often.

The AP of the 203 is significantly better. Whether that makes the gun do more damage is a different question entirely. As I wrote above, the answer to that question depends on a myriad of factors, including playstyle, aiming ability, distance to target etc. The jump in shell weight from 155 to 203 is a much bigger one than the Bogatyr example (in fact the calibre difference is a bit misleading - the 203 shell is nearly twice as heavy as the 155), so the velocity would have to be much, much greater on the 155 to perform better than the 203 - and it isnt (app. 925 v 840m/s). The real strength in the 155s (and much of the Japanese cruiser line) lie in their high rpm and powerful HE shells, and there armor penetration is less important.

Weren't those fixed underwater torp tubes, mounted inside the hull? Many - indeed most - battleships had those, and none of them have them modelled i wows. Only those with deck mounted tubes do. Dunno why. Probably an early design issue. Incidentally, in the real world there is only one recorded case of one battleship ever successfully torpedoing another - HMS Rodney against Bismarck in 1941, and then only after Bismarck had been pounded more or less into a wreck. Almost all battleship duels took place at much longer ranges than torpedoes could be used at. Battleships designed after navies began to realise this in the 30s and 40s therefore usually omitted altogether. By then the battleship era was almost over, though.

Fair enough. I didn't read your post closely enough. My apologies. My earlier post was intended as a rule of thumb answer, since you included a question about guns not available to the Bogatyr. A larger calibre usually equals more energy, and thus more penetration. But things can be more complicated, and the Bogatyr is a good example. Shell velocity is an important part of calculating energy. Usually the velocity difference between calibres arent great enough to negate the effect of firing a heavier shell, bit it is in the Bogatyr case. The 130s should have more energy, and thus penetrate better. The flatter firing arc should also make it easier to hit an enemy at right angles, thus avoiding ricochets and angling issues. That could work against you, though. A higher firing arc, such as that of the 152s, can much more easily strike deck armor. Deck/top armor is almost always significantly thinner than belt/side armor, and is thus more easily penetrated. Yet it gets more complicated. A lighter shell will loose velocity quicker than a heavier shell. Penetration value for the 130 should therefore drop off more quickly than for the 152. At a certain range, the 152 might thus again become the more penetrative shell. I do not know what that range is, though. It might not be an issue at all at t3, since battles there take place at fairly short ranges. Finally there is no rule that a larger calibre automatically means a heavier shell - although that's usually the case. My guess is that for the Bogatyr the 130 is probably the better in most situations. I certainly prefer it. It all comes down to you, though. AP chance is as much about hitting the right spot (angle and thickness of armor), and that is a question both of skill and personal preference. Confused enough? =)

All those three explanations are the same. Bigger shell = better penetration. =)

Because larger calibre usually equals more energy. That means a larger calibre shell can penetrate more armor than a smaller one. Citadels are the most heavily armored parts of ships - thus a larger calibre usually cause more citadel hits.

Never really got that far in school, but thanks for pointing it out. =p I thought you were referring to the Atlanta on the EU server in general, not just your performance in it. Good on you, though. 8th in the leaderboard is impressive. =)

https://eu.warships.today/vehicles - quite thorough stats on wows server data Though I have no idea in what sense he finds the Atlanta is number 8.

What data?All I have is Iain Ballantyne (Warspite; Pen & Sword Maritime, 2010), which on page 81 states that Swordfish were carried from 1938 to the end of 1941. In early 1942 these were replaced with Walrus flying boats, which were carried until catapult and aircraft handling equipment was removed in a refit in May 1943. Always be careful of quoting "data". If you have a source - name it. =) edit: On a side note: I'm not saying your source is wrong. I don't know whether the aircraft handling equipment for Swordfish differed from that for the Walrus. If they used the same equipment I guess there is no reason why Warspite could not have carried a Walrus for a short period in 1940.

They've been added to the game server. You can see them in the tech-tree - just not play them yet.

Really? I was under the impression that they only received tk status (and thus the pink color to their name), at the end of the battle. I don't think I've ever seen a player turn pink during a battle, no matter how much damage they've done to friendlies. I may just be unobservant, though. =)

Being pink does not affect the team. Nor does one become pink during a match. Anyone pink is being marked for having committed an offence in a previous battle, not for tk during the current match. If someone stops playong during a battle it has nothing to with them being pink or not. Could be a server issue, poor connection, game crash, or just plain old AFK. =)

No-one has used insults here, except you. No-one has written using capitals and spamming punctuation marks, except you. No-one here changes their story while telling it, nor refuses to provide evidence they claim to have, except you.Oh well. OP is trolling. (If you really feel insulted by that, Drigtol - feel free to prove me wrong) I suggest this thread be allowed to die peacefully, without further ado. =)

If you have a replay and want help with an issue, post said replay. Otherwise this is just another troll post. =) And no-one has accused you of lying yet.

Oh yes. That one's a true beauty. =)

But the ship is a Swedish one, and its correct name in Sweden is HMS Wasa. At least is was for the brief time it spent afloat. =) And the Norwegian and Danish navies use different prefixes entirely. KNM and KDM respectively.