Aragathor

Good bye, Clear Sky You won't be missed Because of you Many players were pi$$ed! Finally a very positive change. I can see both achievements as being quite doable by good players.

Ah, zero reading comprehensions and a pointed finger. I have never claimed that Aigle was a T8, what I wrote and what you ignored, is that the ship has more HP without the commander skill than most T8 destroyers. So you need a better strawman. The USS Sims DD-409 was 106m long with a displacement a bit over 2000 tons, compared to it the Aigle was 128m long with a weight of over 3000 tons. So the Aigle was almost a quarter longer and half again as heavy. If you want to compare ships, compare the Aigle with the Leningrad, and the Aigle will still be longer and heavier. Leningrad has a concealment of 7.56km compared with Aigle's 7.74km, so they are very similar. Please don't confuse your inability to use short ranged torpedos with the ship's weakness. My own torpedo hit rate on the Aigle is comparable with the hit rate I achieved on similar ships like the Farragut. The ship functions best without AFT, instead relying on it's superior speed boost and high caliber of guns. I took a look at your stats, and lo and behold, you are pretty bad at playing DDs. In fact you are pretty bad at playing everything, save for CVs where you are just below average. So it's you and not the ship.

7 in the Furry Taco. 6 with others, last in a Warspite I think. Sooner or later any average player will go over 5, here and there.

Based on just the stats and the video Notser posted showing how weak the Pensacola will be without the gun upgrade, I must say that the line appears to be severely underpowered. Compared to its current iteration it appears that the ships have all been nerfed in this way or another or have stats that are clearly inferior to other ships at tier. Released as they are presented in the previews, both lines would become the worst ships at tier starting from T6. Having said that, I must confess that I am happy that WG is still testing those ships. I have no illusions about what will happen to the ships after they go onto the public test server, as WG will ignore all but the most aggravating bugs and weaknesses of the ships at that stage (as shown in their previous PTS actions -> Mongqueror *cough*). So as long as the ships stay in the closed test stage, there is hope they will be made better as they appear now. In the end I try to remain positive, but that's WG we are talking about. Sadly...

USS Boise CL-47 was a Brooklyn-class cruiser transferred to the Argentine Navy and renamed ARP Nueve de Julio. So we might see the ship flying the blue and white of Argentina.

So, the preview stats for the Cleveland replacement Dallas have been posted: Before I go forward with my thoughts let's get something out of my head, something that has followed me since the name for the ship was chosen: Looking at both cruisers I can see that the guns remained the same, with Dallas having only 2 less with 2x2 2x3 turrets. I thought the ship would have 4x2 like in the study plans that were done on the Omaha. The range is better than on the Cleveland, but the RoF is much worse. In fact it has a reload only 1s better than the 203mm Aoba, with only 1 gun more than the much faster firing Budyonny/La Galissonniere. The AA of Dallas is 50/68/46 for short/medium/long range compared with Cleveland's 46/27/90. This means that the Dallas will have a better short and medium AA bubble, and a significantly weaker long range bubble. So going for an AA build will require AFT ASAP. The secondaries are much weaker on the Dallas with only 2x2 127mm turrets, compared to this Cleveland had 6x2 127mm. Although it might be even worse as the preview stats don't have a secondaries entry for the Dallas. So either way, good bye troll secondary build. Dallas has also much worse HP and armor, but let's not forget that the Cleveland was phenomenal in this case. Maneuverability is better on the Dallas, but only slightly so. The concealment is much better with 11,9km compared to the Cleveland's 13,3. Consumables worry me, as the Dallas has no access to hydro. Is it an oversight or is it deliberate? I don't know, but it's strange as both Omaha at T5 and current Cleveland have Hydro. With these stats, assuming they will not be changed, the Dallas will become a stealthy light cruiser, with decent AA and the ability to dish out some decent damage into both DDs and BBs. It won't dominate the tier like the Cleveland did. But that's good, as it will give good ships like the Aoba and Budyonny a chance to shine.

Agreed, at least partially. With that turret traverse Pensacola will not achieve much, as it will be unable to deal with DDs maneuvering, and won't be able to keep firing while dodging incoming fire. It will become a "fire then die" ship due to not having armor.

It is clear to me that the stats posted on the dev blog are the baseline from which the ships will be improved up. Because as they stand now they are very underwhelming. The Seattle for example is straight up worse than the Neptune, having less HP and worse guns with a suicide range of 14,7 at T9 and a RoF that would be acceptable at T7 max. Lets hope WG will get creative in making those ships at least average. Because they sure can't make the ships more gimmicky, not with DFAA and Radar in separate slots.

The only person you really know during a battle, is you. You can rely on a clanmate/div mate. But even he can make a bad play. Never rely on others to win, always give 100%. I have seen it many times, games that were in the bag turning to be total losses, games that looked bad being a success. I stopped using that mod a long time ago, because it clouds your judgment and influences your play badly.

Looks like it, Dallas seems very squishy, and not in a good way. Yeah, that's worrying as the Dallas gets outshot by the Perth. And Perth has smoke and torps... With these stats Dallas has the worst RoF at tier.

ST. American cruiser Helena, tier VII. Hit points – 33300. Plating - 16 mm. Armor belt – 51-127 mm. Torpedo damage reduction – 4%. Main battery - 5х3 152 mm. Firing range – 14.6 km. Maximum HE shell damage – 2200. Chance to cause fire – 12%. Maximum AP shell damage - 3200. Reload time - 10 s. 180 degree turn time - 22.5 s. Maximum dispersion - 133 m. HE initial velocity - 812 m/s. AP initial velocity - 762 m/s. Sigma value – 2.0. AA defense - 10x1 20 mm, range - 2.0 km, damage per second - 36. 4x2 20 mm, range - 2.0 km, damage per second - 24. 4x2 40 mm, range - 3.5 km, damage per second - 64. 4x2 127 mm, range - 5.0 km, damage per second - 60. Maximum speed - 32.5 kt. Turning circle radius - 680 m. Rudder shift time – 9.1 s. Surface detectability – 11.9 km. Air detectability – 7.6 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke – 5.6 km. Available consumables: Slot 1 - Damage Control Party Slot 2 - Defensive AA Fire/Hydroacoustic Search Slot 3 - Catapult Fighter All stats are listed without crew and upgrade modifiers but with best available modules. The stats are subject to change during the testing.

How about USS Wisconsin BB-64 armed with 32x Tomahawk missiles and 16x Harpoon missiles? The model is already in the game, just add the launchers.

Amen to that, also pre-dreadnaught ships and ports please.

How about no? The last real ships in the game were all laid down as artillery ships (Sverdlov-class Mikhail Kutuzov was completed 1954). Hell, even the Moskva was a pure artillery design. Introducing a new weapon type like this would put the whole game on its head. Especially since the T10 DDs would be easy meat for T9s with better close range artillery. Because 1x dual purpose gun is nothing compared with a current T10 which has 3x2 guns (Khaba is a light cruiser ). PS: One of the first CIWS systems, the AK-230, was introduced in the 1960s. That's well beyond the scope of the game.

And we are running in circles while WG says "guys we are checking this out".

You need to consider that the emblems are aimed at showing off. So only really good players can have them, otherwise they would be worthless. Not that they are too hard to get, mostly it's a question of being good enough. Looking at your stats I'd say you just need to get better at DDs to qualify for it.

Irrelevant. People who know how to play the Missouri say that something's not right, WG says they are looking into it. People who bought the ship thinking it's an insta-win bote are not part of the discussion at this stage. Great, that's your right and all. Especially since most profiles are set to public. Getting back to the Misery, I think that we will have to wait for WG to do their digging.

The problem with this assertion is that some of the people in this thread are those unicums. If only some average players were here saying the ship is inaccurate, then yeah confirmation bias. But this isn't the case. So I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Also, American BBs have fairly consistent accuracy. They punish bad positioning thanks to the tasty citadel, but they don't have a dispersion modifier over 10km like German BBs.

Remember everyone, the other servers have the same prize pool even though we are much bigger. So the chance of winning is really small on the EU server. Don't get your hopes up next time. And you won't be disappointed.

Flag/Camo SCs and similar should be made into a separate type of container. A blue supply container for example. This would tone down the expectations of people who see the golden dice and the big container only to get 100 signals or 50 skins. People seeing the container would know from the get go they are getting consumables and not a premium ship.

First random game in the Hindenburg, previous experience only on the loaner for CBs. Captain was missing 35k XP to be retrained. Yeah, I didn't expect that. Also, CBs are a damn good way to learn how to play a T10 smart. Here are some older games that clearly illustrate that the Lyon does not need to be rebalanced and is in fact clearly underpowered. The ship is inferior to all other T7 BBs.

That's planned obsolescence. Apple drove lawmakers in Europe to start legislative action to make such practice illegal. Also nerfing a product where customers can prove they spent money, directly or indirectly, for it (buying doubloons) would make WG run afoul customer protection laws in the EU.

They've gotten better. When I started playing the whole EU community was pissed about the Christmas Convoys and how WG handled it. Now the only thing left from it are things like "WG is spoiling us" meme and the magical Flamu vid which even WG employees warn about. In the course of the last year WG improved a lot in how they deal with the WoWS community.

Yup, me too. The amount of doubloons though is huge, 5th place is high enough to buy a T8 premium in addition to the Hood, and have some left over. Just checked the Polish site. The image is there, with the doubloons. Weird.

I think a global "rust" toggle would be great.