tocqueville8

I often have to try twice: the first time it doesn't load, the second one it always does. Same with other "pages" I access from Port, like the Naval Battles.

It's still the case for tech-tree lines. If I go up the USN tree, I need at least a good captain for the Montana, the Gearing, the Worcester, the Des Moines and the Midway, eventually. That's 5 captains, assuming I want to be able to play all the lines around the same time. The current system allows me to recycle my Midway captain on the F. Sherman (different build than Gearing). Or the Gearing captain on the Ohio (different build than Montana). Or the Montana captain on the Alaska (different build than Des Moines). Yes it does and not really, unless you have 3-4 premiums of that nation. But as @ColonelPete suggested, it's also for experimenting on the same ship. For instance, what captain do I run on the Shikishima? Well... I can use the Yamato's, with Brisk and Vigilance, but no Fire Prevention I can use the Kitakaze's, with an "orthodox" survivability build I can use the Yugumo's, with AA (say, if I division with a CV) I can use the Ibuki's, with secondaries and IFHE (maybe in Ranked, though not really...) Ship modules can be swapped just by spending a few million credits, but captain builds cannot. However, if you have several good ones from multiple tech-tree lines, you can experiment a bit on your premiums, using a different captain instead of respeccing, which is expensive. I think to encourage people to buy premiums. I also think: to have an excuse not to give free respec periods. I mean...I can't remember the last one we had, honestly

Didn't you ask the same thing on Reddit 8 days ago?

A selection of 20'' shenanigans: Strategic bombing of an American plane factory A nice flanking game in the British meme-machine. The Kronstadt was obviously afk, so I can't claim too much credit, but this was not Arms Race. ...and the game right after: a solo push down the Western flank of North.

I'm not complaining that they didn't penetrate: I'm complaining that they didn't hit. I know DDs can vary speed dramatically, but this was at 3-4 km: the secondaries should've still hit him, if not exactly in the middle.

Met my first Emilio today, in the Rupprecht. Of course, he almost won on points before I could even approach the cap from an angle that wouldn't make me a sitting duck. He charged at me anyway, so I kited, took 2/8 torps and started chewing into his hp..but a lot of the secondaries missed completely, even at 3-4 km. It's not the dispersion: they just aim wrong. Anyway, his torps on the other side were broken, so I was safe and won it. But again, the secondaries are bugged against DDs.

Steerable torps on British battlecruisers? When can I get them on my Sherman?

I think that's the key: Ohio is pretty terrible at range due to her slow shells. Sure, she can still Dev Strike a stationary, broadside target two caps away, but beyond a certain point shell flight time and penetration are more important than accuracy, when it comes to dealing consistent damage. Ohio's strong suit is mid-range fighting, where she can take advantage of her fast heals, fast turrets and possibly the secondaries to overpower her opponents, and her targets don't have enough time to dodge those slow shells. She's kind of the anti-Slava.

If you use free xp, you only need about 680k per reset, using the Harugumo line. It's more expensive if you actually want to play the line, as you'll probably take some range or torpedo modules, but still not 850k. As for the question, no ship is worth that trouble, really.

USS Saratoga, too. Twice iirc.

Depth charges are kind of sad when: hardly any ship has a hedgehog-type weapon subs go insanely fast underwater

I think the question is whether the winrate distribution is narrower than in the past, meaning there's a general leveling-off that brought people closer to 50%. Then again, I'm not sure what that would prove, even if true: with years of experience, the good players are probably better now than 7 years ago, but bad players also have had years to improve, plus a lot of mechanics are better known and there are a lot of resources, reviews, guides, etc. I guess what we're getting at is the suggestion that the game has been "dumbed down" over the years, which would help bad players at the expense of good ones

I agree, I'd like to know who's complimenting me: 1) if it's a forumite I didn't notice, I could PM them to say hello. Maybe they wrote something in chat, but I was distracted 2) if it's someone who appreciated something specific I did in battle, I might compliment them back for good manners, especially if they were on the other team 3) if it's someone who complimented me for scoring at or near the top, well, it's still nice to know, and I might compliment them back if they did well, or just for good manners. It's the reports that I'd rather be kept anonymous, to avoid toxicity.

It's true of pretty much all BBs against most cruisers. If you're in a Montana, and you're given the job to sink a Hindenburg, which engagement range would you pick? Probably 7-8 km: enough to keep his torps away, but close enough to nuke him in a couple of salvoes. Some cruisers don't even have torps, or they have to show broadside to use them, and at 8-10 km they'd just get deleted. Then the BB can turn away and torpedobeat. Torps reload slowly, it's easy to launch them too early or too late if you can't see the BB coming, and decent players will go nose-in or turn away well before the island, avoiding most of the damage. Meanwhile, one botched ambush and the DD/torpedo-cruiser gets Dev Struck back to port. In my experience, the best environment for torpedoboats is open flanks like the A cap on North & Northern Lights, or Ocean, or between A and B on Trap. It's not where there are "more islands" and "chokepoints", as without seeing the targets about to move in or past those chokepoints I'm not going to be able to time my launches correctly, and the torps are going to be wasted. Also, islands encourage people to go nose-in next to them, and those are, again, bad torpedo targets. I stand by my statement that a lack of islands does not "dumb things down" for the benefit of "long range BBs", but rather it helps torpedoboats and cruisers with good range and ballistics. Most BBs would like just the opposite.

Because it's stupid. The Ohio gets a 6 km ASW strike "because she's overperforming, so it's a balancing choice", but Bourgogne and Shikishima, which have very similar winrates, get pretty much the regular range.

I don't see a lot of outflanking in WoWs, unless some BBs decide to leave their flank for no reason and sail across the map, in which case their counterparts can push that flank freely. Normally, what happens on a lot of maps are two (temporary) stalemates on each flank, with a lot of ships not even bothering to pre-turn to go stern-in, a more fail-safe approach, and instead fighting and dying nose-in the whole time. Very WoT-like, indeed. 1) On many maps, there are no "far away islands" to hide behind: the spawns are wide open and then there are a bunch of islands around the caps in the middle. 2) I rarely have a problem with "long range crossfires", and kudos to those with the map awareness to pull them off. If I sink prematurely, it's probably not because of that, but because I misjudged how much support I had and ended up pushing too early and getting focused on. The current Islands of Ice often sees people pushing straight into C, taking advantage of the big iceberg, and there's plenty of sneaking around to be done on B. Imho maps with fewer islands don't advantage BBs as much as they advantage heavy cruisers and torpedoboats. The former have the DPM and maneuverability to outtrade BBs in the open, and the concealment to pick the most favorable fights, and the latter get open lanes for their torps. With the possible exception of the Yamato, which has horrible turret traverse, most BBs would prefer maps with lots of islands, as they would shield them from torps (and HE spam...) while allowing to get closer and nuke those cruisers from a distance where their concealment would be irrelevant, and their maneuverability insufficient.

I don't think you can buff the torpedo damage on DDs, just on cruisers. The 2-point skill is for the speed.

I guess a lot of good players right now are in Convoy, Ranked or at Tier 10 trying their new Mecklenburg, but I'm doing better than expected in the Hornet And I think some reviewers were a bit too harsh on these AP bombers: that's 15 citadels out of 23 bombs. Granted, the targets were a Sinop, a Colorado and an Atago, but still, they're not as awful as some said

Veteran recruitment center container, for 3000 tokens (many from Convoy).

I disagree with the general idea of these paragraphs. 1) To me, and I suspect to a lot of much less experienced players as well, the essence of BB play is long-range gunnery: setting up crossfires, aiming at citadels, timing my turns, going dark to heal/dmgcon, adjusting my aim based on previous turns by my target, etc. I'm all for BBs pushing and ambushing, when it makes sense strategically, but that's not the bread-and-butter of their gameplay. And no, I'm not endorsing backline sniping, but I think most BBs should play the first half or so of the game at some distance from the "frontline", and that "ambush and stealth play" is the prize you get for staying alive past minute 12 or so. I think one of the sweetest feelings in this game is nailing a DD at 17 km with that final overpen, when he thought he could straightline or telegraph his turn because, hey, who's going to hit him at that range? Or hitting a citadel at 20 km on someone who figured that, since he was going undetected in 4 seconds, he could get sloppy with his angling and turn prematurely. 2) I also think that "local pockets of information sharing should create a greater interdependency and a greater opportunity to make an aggressive forward move" is more or less a euphemism for lemming train, and I much prefer the more strategic play that is now possible because information is shared more or less across the entire map, so I can make a call to help one flank or the other, or to flank and crossfire a central push, or whatever, based on the info from the minimap. 3) Disclaimer: I've never played WoT, but I have seen dozens of replays on Jingles' and Quickybaby's channels. I'm sure the spotting mechanic is just one of the many reasons why that's the case, but I can't help but noticing that most of the gameplay is either sidescraping near hard cover, or driving madly from cover to cover. Granted, they're tanks and it probably makes more sense for those things, but I wouldn't want WoWs to move closer to WoT in terms of gameplay. 4) Finally, I have a general problem with the suggestion to rework something as fundamental as the spotting mechanic 7 years after the launch of the game. I'm okay with tweaking plane spotting, subs vs hydro or other things (personally, I hate cyclones...), but this seems too much. Thx, but no thx

Cherbourg is fine. If they buffed the reload she'd be too strong.

Isn't that how a good chunk of the playerbase regards another good chunk of the playerbase?

Only Odin and Zieten have "much faster" reload, I'd say. As for the rest, I think it's okay to have slightly worse reload than some BBs, but a reload boost for that damage spike when needed. I haven't played her much, tbh, but my impressions were positive: the reload is annoying, but the consumables pay off if the game goes the distance.

These are my solo numbers. The Shiki just appears to perform better, probably because CVs are more afraid of her AA than of the Yamato's. Granted, the Yamato was only my second Tier 10 ship, so I was less experienced, but I've always played her with the recommended tank build, while on the Shiki I've tried secondaries (with or without IFHE) and full AA, both probably suboptimal. I didn't always have the Legendary for the Yammy, of course, but I had it soon enough. You can also see how having the tech-tree one encouraged me to get the freemium, and I still played both: counterintuitive, maybe, but clearly a good decision anyway.

I kinda like Arms Race, but it messes with the stats: my overall record damage, both from my Profile in the game client and wows-numbers.com, is now "doped" by having been in this mode. Let's say that 4 months from now I score somewhere in between, but in a normal Randoms game...well, it's not going to register