tocqueville8

Imho she is not worth 2M free xp. I got her and I pulled a 220k dmg game the second time I took her out, but she struggles to find her role, certainly compared to the Smaland (insane DD hunter) or Alaska+Friesland, one very strong in Ranked, the other a fairly unique dakka-bote. Even the Azuma so far has been a better experience for me, thanks to her awesome ballistics. Going TRB is riskier at T10 than it was a T9 with the Yugumo, as the Yugumo would often be in all-T9 matches, which of course have no CV. Going full DD hunter is...meh, due to the lack of a vision consumable (radar or hydro), slow speed, so-so concealment. Imho she needs a buff: better concealment, better torpedo reload (so you don't have to invest so much to make it workable), more torpedo range, a Def AA consumable...not every one of these things, naturally, but one or two. Something. If she had, say, 5.8 concealment and TRB in a separate slot than smoke, she still wouldn't be as strong as the Smaland, but she'd be more worthy of her price tag. Frankly, I think the Research Bureau is a better use for that free xp: reset and research some lines, spend the credits, and get yourself a Slava or a Vampire II (or the Legendary Upgrade for the Kleber, if you're feeling frisky): at least they're more "unique". Cheers.

You simply can't overwhelm a DD that has good concealment, is sailing away, refuses to engage, smokes up if necessary, has air support, etc. If you want good DD hunters, Smaland and Marceau have powerful gimmicks, but most tech tree lines can do a good job too, if you spec them for it.

I can't even...

I use Engine Mod + 40% Rudder Mod, IFA, PT and Last Stand (which imho is crucial, if you kite), and indeed I often go for the openwater-nuisance playstyle. The thing is, range, ballistics and HE pen are pretty bad, so you're not a reliable damage dealer like an Ibuki or a Hindenburg, and in my experience you're easily pushed so far away that even if you eventually stop them you might be useless for the next 2-3 minutes. I know the Wooster is less maneuverable, but she gets more pens against cruisers and with RPF+radar she can occasionally ambush a DD (or a Smolensk/British CL) and start carrying that flank. I still think the Colbert is fun, but I just don't find her consistent: she lacks range/ballistics in the opening, tankiness in the late game, and imho she should get trick up her sleeve, like the Austin's 32 mm belt + torps (never mind the reload boost) or the Wooster's radar.

I'm thinking against bots Austin is stronger, as she has good torps for Dev Strikes and she's fairly tanky (against AP, I mean) if angled correctly. The Plymouth looks quite strong in Randoms from the few games I've played with her, but she's slower than the Mino, has fewer torps, and her radar is useless in Co-Op. Between the two, I'd get the Austin. Marceau and Paolo Emilio are also a blast in that mode.

I'm thinking the Austin might be more effective than the Colbert, as she has that extended 32 mm belt and excellent torpedoes, so she can rush most BBs in a pinch. I find the Colbert extremely hard to play, personally, as she gets overmatched even by a Henri IV, she's got no torps for close quarters nor radar to surprise DDs every now and then (a bit weird for a post-WW2 AA cruiser...), and in general she's extremely situational. Still fun when all the stars align (or some kind-hearted DD gives me a smoke), but I reckon the Austin would be a bit more versatile.

I don't have the numbers to make a direct comparison, but DDs are indeed very prone to Dev Strikes: 1) they detonate MUCH more easily 2) they often take 1-2 torps when trying to cap, and BOOM: Dev Strike and First Blood Also, I've Dev Struck DDs with - BB HE, esp. at mid tiers where DDs have to stay closer to torp and often get spotted, hide in smoke and you can rush them - CA HE or Italian SAP - occasionally BB AP (recently, Iowa vs Cossack on slightly over 50% hp) - CV, either with rockets (pre-nerf) or 2 torps if the DD was straightlining - sometimes, running into a DD at close range with a CL, like Mino or Colbert Most of the times, the other ships are either Dev Struck by torps or by multiple citadel hits, which generally means they misplayed heavily.

Last time someone brought this up, I did a little experiment checking the % of fire damage I had taken in my last 20 games playing BBs where I'd kept the replay+screenshots, so I could look up the numbers. It was around 15%, on average. 15% of the total damage I had taken. Clearly, those were pretty good games, so there was a selection bias, but I dare say that, if I don't overextend and get focus-fired, any BB match that I play competently likely doesn't have me take more than 30% damage as fires, which of course are 100% healable. Fires are not a problem if you're specced for fire resistance (as you should be: even if you go for secondaries, take Fire Prevention and maybe Dmg Con Mod 2) and you manage your Dmg Con well. The problem might be the direct HE damage, as well as getting focused and taking damage from multiple enemies at once, which prevents you from making use of all your heals. Remember: - BBs aren't "supposed to take damage" - BBs are supposed to do damage - BBs are supposed to get shot at, but they should take care to mitigate incoming damage through angling (against AP and SAP), proper use of Dmg Con (against fires & floodings) and maneuvering (against HE, torpedoes and, yes, air attacks) If you're taking too much damage too quickly, you simply overextended. That's what overextending means, basically

I agree that IFHE is probably a better deal for Bismarck, Tirpitz, FdG and Pommern than for GK or Gneisenau, but you can take IFHE on those as well: - the 128s would pen 40 mm instead of 32, allowing them to directly damage the decks and upper belts of high tier USN BBs, as well as the Vladivostok (and possibly more, I don't remember) - the 150s will go from 40 to 47 mm, which will damage the V. Veneto's deck (45 mm). I think I'd rather go Vigilance or turret traverse on those, but one can go full secondary meme...

I wouldn't try anything past T6, in fact I remember practicing a lot with Wyoming, Izyaslav, Sampson and Fuso before moving on. The Kuma is also nice, as are Pensacola, Orion, Ryujo, Leander...

For once, as the team decided to overstay in B and get slaughtered in classic "win harder" fashion (we were ahead by 1 cap and 400 points...), I managed to pull out and crawl away with a win. Also, a nice Smolensk kill in the Shikishima (no detonation)

I mean, there's a lot of room for possibilities between an average player and a 75% WR CV player: somewhere along that line, an above-average CV captain will still fall prey to Def AA, from time to time. I did misread that, sorry. Still, I suppose I'd take the "less damage now, more damage later" option, if available.

I don't think we're just talking about "skilled" CV players, just CVs in general. 3 more flak bursts are nice to have, especially against CVs with large squadrons. I'm not saying that I assess their effectiveness at slowing down the CV at 5% or 10% or whatever, but they're certainly a net positive, at least every now and then. Well, it might against an average CV captain who has no other options but to go for that DM right now. To say Def AA "doesn't count" because the CV can just cheese it and stay away from it for 40 seconds is...reasonable in practice, but I think it misses the point: the point is that Def AA works, if not at slaughtering planes, at least at keeping CVs away for a bit (perhaps long enough to cap, heal, get closer to friendlies, etc.) It's a bit like saying the Tirpitz (or Scharnhorst or something...) didn't work because she didn't sink half of the British navy (merchant or military) on her own: ok, sure, but she tied up a lot of resources with her mere presence, and that should also count somehow. Def AA gives a bonus that's easy to factor in when looking at maximum theoretical DPS: either we accept that, and factor it in and come up with a nice ratio, or we don't, and instead we start thinking of all the possible "paths" the CV-surface ship interaction can take. This can go on forever, but somewhere in there the window of immunity Def AA might provide would also need to be taken into account, just in a much less quantifiable way.

None of that is wrong, but it's all circumstantial. More flak is better, more DPS is better. Just because Def AA can be cheesed or the reinforcement sector can be mismanaged it doesn't mean they shouldn't count for the maximum theoretical DPS. We might as well say that maybe the different auras have been crippled by HE spam to a different extent, or that if Def AA makes the CV bail early the target ship can complete a capture and win the game, or get close enough to spot the CV and sink her, or whatever. Any scenario is possible.

I think the improved maximum DPS should be 543 * 1.15 (module) * 1.2 (skill) * 1.5 (Def AA) * 1.75 (improved reinforcement sector) = 1967 DPS --> 17 Midway DBs compared to 543 * 1.5 (standard reinforcement) = 814 DPS ---> 7 Midway DBs That's over twice as much, in theory of course: sector reinforcement won't always be at full strength. But then again, 3 more flak bursts should force the CV player to spend a little extra time maneuvering... My point is that, as long as we're not estimating how many planes will actually be lost (what about maneuvering? what about a single attack run? what about flak? etc.), but simply making an assessment of the relative values of a stock DM and an AA-DM for continuous damage, an AA build more than doubles the maximum DPS.

I think that's the whole point: - CVs are fairly rare at T9-10 - even if there is a CV in the game, she might always decide to strike someone else, especially if you don't survive very long - bad CV captains will waste planes anyway, especially against flak - good CV captains will get at least a strike through against ships with bad AA, and will mostly avoid those with great AA (strong base and an AA build) Basically, the odds that 1) there's a CV in the game, 2) it's a good player, 3) he goes for you despite you having good base AA, 4) he keeps going for you even though you have an AA build...is super low, and not worth it.

It's: - 1.15x from the module - 1.2x from the skill - 1.5x from Def AA instead of 1x from hydro - 1.75x instead of 1.5x from sector reinforcement with the other skill Assuming the bonuses multiply each other (correct me if that's wrong), that's a maximum of 3.6x your continuous damage instead of 1.5x, which seems considerable. Even without the sector reinforcement, we're looking at a 2.07x multiplier compared to a 1x.

Either that, or some sort of Dockyard event with more phases than usual locked behind a paywall.

Frankly I get more annoyed by radar cruisers who just ram an island in the middle of the map early on and are extremely hard to dislodge (especially since many BB players seem to have no concept of crossfire and flanking), but can still cover 1 or 2 caps, than by CVs, in general. So I'm not into the whole "DM needs AA to defend strategic points" argument. By the same argument, a Shima also needs excellent AA to singlehandedly lock down a flank using torpedoes. I had a couple of games in the Salem where an FDR focused me hard, and yes it was annoying, but in both cases the main issue was my DDs refusing to spot the flank, which allowed the enemy DDs to torp me from there, limiting what "dodging" I could do against the planes.

Can't say I've ever tried it. If I did, I would probably find it not worth it, as CVs would likely focus someone else, which they often do anyway.

Oh no I get it, but the argument could then be "nerf Petro AA" just as well. I do think it's weird that the number of flak clouds is higher on some T9s than on some T10s (see Neptune vs Mino), but I think it's because of some formula involving the number of dual purpose guns.

I tend to agree. There are 5 different perks one can take to improve one's AA (6 if you include Aux Armament Mod 1, 7 with the fighter, which would be straight-up trolling), and that build had none of them. Even a full AA build on a ship with strong AA should allow a strike to get through, imho: otherwise it'd be like the Yamato having 100% torpedo protection, or something like that. Strong is fine, but it shouldn't mean "invulnerable".

I think lots of players were blindsided by the fact that, as the captain rework kicked in, the Thunderer was withdrawn, so everybody who didn't have one yet got her (I didn't, but then again I refused to get the Smolensk, as well) and played her for a while. Now, the Thunderer is a major long-range HE spamming menace, and as such she encourages opponents to also play at range, to have more chance of dodging her shells and to avoid getting permafired by someone else. As a result, people associated Dead Eye with more camping/sniping than it was actually responsible for. But that's just my opinion. Some smarty-pants might ask for "proof" of this theory, and of course I have none, it's just my feeling as a regular player. What I do know for sure is that Thunderers are now a fairly rare sight, while in February/March there were often 2-3 of them on each team. Dead Eye would've been fine without the added concealment-related condition, which of course encouraged *some* camping, and possibly with a small nerf (say, from -10% dispersion to -7%, equivalent to Aiming Systems Mod 1). Imho they're not, but I won't go into that. Personally, I think the biggest problem in the game is the overmatch mechanic. Despite having equal or bigger guns, a Nagato is hopelessly outclassed by both the Amagi and the Bismarck, let's say, and that's only a 1-tier difference. I don't know how they should change it, maybe just give the Nagato (and Colorado, KGV, Strasbourg, etc.) better plating, but they should change it: right now it's silly.

My take: Cruisers: YES, it's pretty much the only good 2-point skill on most cruisers. Some mid-tier cruisers might also take the AA skill, and extra consumable duration is useful on something like the Plymouth, but otherwise it's pretty much a no-brainer. Destroyers: possibly on gunboats, but possibly not I used to take it on the Kiev-Khaba line, as one could go PM+PT+LS+AR+SE+AFT+BFT+DE for a nice 19-pts build. The thing is, now Pyrotechnician is less worth it, so there are no good 2-point skills to pair PT with, assuming you run SE+AR for 3 points and CE/FB+AFT for 4 points. I've stopped taking it altogether, to be honest. And I'd never take it on hybrids or pure torpedoboats. You're in a DD: if you're spotted, assume they'll all be shooting at you. They won't, but it's just a good rule to go by. Battleships: far less than it used to be It used to be the obvious 1-point choice, now I hardly take it. The reason is that in most cases I want 2 3-point skills (AR and either BoS or secondary range) and 3 4-point skills (FP+CE+ERE or FP+CQC+secondary accuracy), so there's only room for 1 2-point skill, and that's usually turret traverse, or maybe Vigilance if we're talking about a German secondary platform. You could give up BoS, but it's nice to have it anyway as it allows you to run a maneuverability module in Slot #4 (rudder or acceleration, depending on your turret arrangement). Also, if you do give up BoS, what are you going to take, PT+...? 3 seconds faster reload on your heal? Meh...

Imho Co-op should be a few humans against a lot more bots, simple as that. Kind of like Operations, but less structured and available at any tier.