Taliesn

What a car crash of a thread, fair play. I've met the OP in battle once (if not twice) over the last days. Not only did he stayed away from caps, he also did nothing of note and as is often the case with these players when he finally decided to do something he got deleted in 5 seconds the moment he was detected.

Popcorn bro is back! Oi mate, make your bro's stats visible again so we can admire your daka-daka, DD hunting cruiser-lite Grozo that laughs in the face of Des Moines and Moskvas! Come on, do it bro!

That Grozovoi is not the best DD at contesting caps is neither here nor there as to wether you should not pick CE and hamper your team's ability to win the game. You lose very little by choosing CE over AFT+1 point skill. And the difference is huge in terms of your ability to dictate how the battle unfolds because you'll be useless in terms of spotting and thus will be relying on others spotting for you. And basically reacting to what the enemy does.

No, concealment Grozo is not sub-obtimal because you can still, if you want to or are forced to, shoot from 14km away without going into caps. You can have both BFT and CE, and SI and SE. By not taking CE though you are limiting yourself and your team's chance to win the match.

You still don't get it. Nobody is saying you can't play Grozovoi like you play Khaba. It's up to you and if you enjoy it, end of the story. What we are trying to explain is that it is not optimal and it doesn't seem to be the best way to play Grozovoi, that has the concealment if properly specc'd to contest caps. Something you won't do with a cruiser-lite Grozovoi. If there are other 4 DDs in the match fair play, but if you are one of a couple of DDs per team, you are severely hampering your team's chances to win because spotting + capping is still much more decesive than a bit of HE spam through 14km daka-daka.

How is that stupid? It is a fact. Kurfurst is a better secondary built brawler than Montana, or any other BB for that matter. Armor scheme, number and range of secondaries, health pool, coincidentally worse than most at long range... Can you play a close quarters brawling Montana? Sure. It is not optimal nor the best idea though, which is the whole point. You can play a Grozovoi like you play a Khaba, but so far there is no proof this is optimal because you are missing on some features of Grozovoi that will probably put your team at a disadvantage. She can get to a 6.0 concealmeant to begin with, something which the Khaba can only dream of.

Oh yes, you could be onto something. To be honest it was the fixed turret thing that annoyed me the most as it is already pretty hard to keep them on target if you like to roam a bit like myself but that seems to be (partially?) adressed by the incoming buff.

I'm undecided about Yamato's. Accuracy is not really her problem, and with the Legendary Module (as opposed to Main Battery Mod 3) you lose 6% reload. That's almost 2 seconds. The incoming turret buff seems to balance the -19% turret traverse (again compared to the -13% from Main Battery Mod 3) Zao loses 1,3km range (+8% range against Gun Fire Control System's +16%) and again accuracy isn't generally the problem. The +20% rudder shift time is nice. So again, undecided. I'm going for Grozovoi's, Kurfurst's, Moskva's and Hindenburg's LMs, probably in that order.

Had a scrape with a Gearing inside a cap the other day, he abandoned it with 7k health, I bailed out with 6k (we both had some support) He basically was stuck with his 7k for the rest of the game but 2 repairs later I was up to some 13k.

You obviously missed the "and on the assumption that the enemy team will also be populated by morons" bit. And it seems you are on conspiracy territory with your "morons players mostly end up on my team".

By the logic that if you are sorrounded by morons and IF you are good, it follows you will the be only one who has the skillz to carry the game. Whether you are able to carry will depend on how good you are and on the assumption that the enemy team will be also populated by morons. HTH

Top tier Cleveland...

I think I've played some 18 games (saturday and sunday, random, solo) I lost 4. Can I have more weekend warriors please? The idea that weekend warriors kill this game is bonkers btw. They are much more needed than unicums, of which there are five... (Eddie Izzard quote there)

All of this. Also, if the enemy Yugumo gets killed at the start of the game, then suddenly the enemy team has no spotting assets. Green team can lose Fletcher or Shima and the other can still spot for the team. Green team also has two smoke cruisers on top of Fletchers long smoke. But in the end it's mostly about player skill and random f*ckups.

Total Played (Random): 7089 Most played: Alab

Battle cannot be won especially due to your contribution AND you ending third from BOTTOM at the same time mate. Well, a Shima or another DD with good concealment could claim such a thing even if he only were spotting for his team during the whole match (whilst not being properly rewarded), but you by your own admission are not such thing and you cannot spot without being spotted first. By a good margin. So no, it doesn't make sense.

Brilliant stuff. Please someone tell me this guy's a regular on a wind up. There might be some potato, yoloing, unsupported Shima out there who will fall for your build and fantasy tactics but somehow I doubt it. Was it your "brother" who hid your stats as well? In any case, popcorn bro is funnier.

Kita and Haru's AA is apparently nothing to write home about, precisely because they don't have DefAA. Without it you are counting on the enemy CV to park his planes over you for ages just to shoot the odd one. Khaba and Udaloi are unlikely to mount DefAA in my experience.

Oh yes you can. I got 4 or 5 citadels on a broadside Montana last weekend. At suicide range mind, but it can be done.

It'd be nice for Akizuki to have Def AA if only to match WG's own description of her. Oh I just remembered Hsienyang. Understably I had forgotten her the moment I could research Chung Mu. Such a crap ship between two great ones! (not helped by MM either)

Well ,that's your fault for even giving it a go in the first place...

Simply take a look at the number of Prime Ministers in Japan from the mid 20's to the end of the war. 16 in less than 20 years, from all colours. Some were lucky enough to survive an assesination attempt, others did not. I'd say there was at least as much chance of the currrent clique at the time to be forced to commit sepukku than to keep fighting to the end. But there you go. Except for the fact that one big civilian murder fiesta (your words, as far as I can tell) is as good a justification against an atomic bomb as any I could think (once you have conveniently removed every other possibility that's been offered here) Still a crime against humanity had the bomb been dropped by the Japanese, no matter the justification offered.

Ok, we are making some headway here. You have gone quiet on the bombings and legal front, good. And I take it the moral aspect of dropping two atomic bombs on the largely civilian population is irrelevant here because the US is a significant historical actor, just like the IJN is. And still no mention of the Indianapolis and Nicholas Cage.

Revisionism? Crimes against humanity did not exist before the Nurnberg trials. They were "created" for the purpose of trialing the german high command. And the mass terror bombings would have been added to the case had it been the germans doing it. No grey areas existed if you were the victor. And there is nothing factual about the sentence "the US at the time had to force the japanese to surrender" unless you accept they were in a race of sorts. They could have gone for the amphibious invasion. Of course it would have meant more US casualties, but forced to drop the bomb? Yeah nah, forced to drop it because they wanted to signal the world (read the SU) who would be calling the shots and wanted to end it as fast as possible because the SU might not be that averse to go the invasion route, sure. The rest is literature to dress and support what was a despicable murderous act. Oh, and you are arguing this: The alternative the US had was the nuclear option, a show of force with a much greater intimidation effect which if it worked to force a surrender would have caused far fewer casualties, military AND civilian, than the planned conventional invasion BUT you follow it up (and as a dig to myself) with this: We will never know if the conventional invasion would've caused less collaterals And this: it's fairly pointless to try and argue any of that from the luxury of hindsight. That's the kind of superficial and shallow analysis I'd expect from an elementary grade history schoolbook Brilliant effort!

Am I right he only managed once to end up at the top of the table in all those pics? Mate if you were even remotely good at this game you should be up there when sorrounded by (allegedly) crap players. Also, could you please post a replay instead of some name-and-shame pics? That way the thread won't be locked and we can keep laughing. Thanks