Hugh_Ruka

yes please, that will make a flag and module redundant ... the signal slot can be actually used for something useful (and potentialy more expensive).

That is unfortunately dependent on the time those views are expressed. The "definition" of morally questionable changes in time and also geographically. Nobody has a problem with "inclusivity" if it is not forced. That then becomes morally questionable in itself.

Hahahahaha ... good one ...

Fiji and Leander don't have radar. Also compared to the USN CAs, the RN ones without smoke cannot tank. They get overmatched by anything bigger than 8" guns.

ALL Special commanders are like that. They don't have a rank no matter their level. Yamamoto, Halsey, Ovechkin etc ... all the special commander don't have a rank. As for the uniform, I cannot comment on that one ... I guess that may be a historic depiction of a specific point in time ?

Sure, but that is manual work while the interface already has all the values ... so it could just be a button that fills those in ?

Fiji and Edi nerfed ? WHY ? How about Nevsky/Petro nerfs ?

There's a huge difference between Featured and Recommended in what it displays. Mainly because Featured ships cannot be in the Ships section as that would allow people to use discount coupons which WG does not want. So again what is the Recommendation based on ? It displays old and new, garbage and good ships in the same category (and most fun part, some ships are there twice as they are available for more than one resource). Oh and while you are at it: How about adding a "CAN AFFORD" filter ? That would be useful ...

Transaltion: we spent so much time creating underwater portions of the maps that we have run out of time and resources to actually adjust the game properly for the new ship class.

Like CVs ? Great team work there ...

Yeah ... I am curious what the "Recommended" category is based on ...

Thanks for returning filters to the Armory. I'd have one request however, can you add a steel converter automatically to the armory section when resources are missing ? What I mean is this: When buying a ship that I don't have the resources, steel is ignored in the display of how much I am missing: I am missing only 38k coal or 3800 steel to buy that ship. However when I do have the resources, steel is factored in automatically: It would be nice to see how much COAL or STEEL I am missing in the first scenario. Some people might not be aware they can use steel to substitute coal. Yes I know there are some that won't use steel for coal ships etc. But that information display would be nice.

Correct me if wrong but WE cannot test those ships ...

Those would be actual useful features. WG cannot allow that ...

And what would that do now ? No matter HOW MANY achievements you complete, you still get rewarded the same. So new achievements stopped being an incentive now. WG managed to make achievements completely meaningless.

I like it. But then again I am not playing the mode for the big ships ... The main advantages are the smaller teams and reduced MM.

yeah that one is interesting ... can I have that on a YY ?

Care to be at least a bit consistent when you write something ? On the first one you say it is MY problem and then you say it happens ALWAYS. So one or the other ?

that torpedo indicator behavior was true for me since at least a year. I could never do a straight launch sequence of 2 launchers one after the other in ANY way. I have seen it on stream (Flambass and others) but could never execute it myself. The torpedo indicator ALWAYS jumped for me between launches. so I don't think this is something new. maybe there's an additional component now that introduces the offset.

The torps go exactly where you launch them. The problem is, the bearing you are launching them is a few msec (your aim) off from what you think it is ....

Please do work this one out properly. Don't give in to the vocal clowns on the forums (me included). Don't rush a solution ...

So now, i properly aim at an target while turning my ship. Can you please tell me how exactly the server is supposed to misslead the torpedos? The server does not have a clue about your intentions. It is only watching the physical properties of the ships. So what is proper aim is clear to you but not the server. So, even with 1 full second of lag, the server should still be pointing my torpedos at the same spot i aimed and thus launch them in exactly that direction. The server can do 2 things: 1. compensate for the lag, which will cause your game to stutter or 2. ignore the lag which will cause you to not hit. From the point of the server there is NOT correct aim. Only the moment when you click. And at that moment the server freezes the positions is has calculated and launches the torps. The server thinking about correct aim created the shells falling short bug. Do you want to have similar ? Imagine it like this: The server is using exactly what you described: the position, speed, turn rate of the ship and launcher angle and calculates updates on those positions. When you click to launch the torpedoes, this calculation continues and 35msec later the server registers your torpedo launch. At that moment, it freezes the positions it has in its simulation, launches the torpedoes and updates the client on the angles etc. That's where the discrepancy happens. Now there are 2 options: 1. The server calculates YOUR lag and compensates for it. This has a few disadvantages. To keep the game fair, the server needs to lock everybody to the player with the worst ping. Thus the player with the worst ping determines the lag for everybody else. Also network lag is not constant, so issues happen in this case as well. 2. Implicitly trust the client data. This means the client at the time of launch sends to the server the positions as the client perceives them. There needs to be a process where all the different world views are correlated and the individual clients updated. This is susceptible to client side exploits. The other option is what we have now. Which one of the 3 are you most comfortable with ?

Don't know about that. But I play only DDs here. Basically I state where I am going at the start of the game, name the main threats and call targets afterwards. Usually the team responds with their guns properly. So far it worked well when I concentrated on my gameplay properly (See my Vauquelin stats f.e. where I DID follow that pattern basically every game).

Ok, that there ended the discussion :-)

if it works for you, have at it. I am playing Khabarovsk with concealment modules and it works for me f.e. However you rely too much on your torps in this case to finish the enemy because you have less concealment margin. that's a direct result of your double rudder configuration. and (by your words) it screws up your torps. so your configuration is less than optimal in that regard. you are paying the price for it.