NothingButTheRain

Would you be willing to clarify this? Do you mean how ships are implemented? Personally I find it odd that so few players of a country with such a significant navy history during the WW1 and WW2 periods are finding their way into this game. The players that remain there do seem to really like WoWS though and the few times I played there, it seemed a bit less toxic and a bit more tactical when the chat was used. I found it a pleasant experience

Sometimes there are these weird battles. This is one of them: 20180629_214208_PFSB108-Richelieu_45_Zigzag.wowsreplay

In addition to what's already been said, dunno if you already have but one thing I bought first were extra port slots (wait till there's a discount unless you really have to).

My guess is that Hades_warrior just wants it for steel as he gotten some steel from playing clan wars and I remember he ended up converting fxp to get Missouri so he probably doesn't have enough fxp to get Alaska, if Alaska ends up as a freemium...so he wants it for steel as otherwise he can't afford to get Alaska (or at least have the option to do so). What I don't like about it is him (blatantly?) lying about Alaska being for steel for sure (as it's clearly stated it's unsure yet, but he makes others dig up the sources) and being condescending towards players who don't play clanwars (and thus wouldn't be able to get Alaska...he doesn't seem to care others feel ''attacked'' as long as he can get her..or so it seems). This might put some things into perspective.

Thanks! I've used region changer in the past but always had the EU client. I did notice I could enter the arsenal on my NA account (which is empty, I just wanted to be able to read that forum lol) so this kinda makes sense The only issue is that I already had the EU client. The NA client updates a day earlier and I always had the update the same day everyone on EU server also has the update. Perhaps region changer messes something up, I'm unsure if I'd need to do a complete reinstall but I'd rather not.

I basically added the bonus link page to my profile somewhere

I'm currently grinding Rich and I'm enjoying her quite a lot I use my speedboost modules on the French cruisers, but I feel like Rich doesn't actually need the speed boost module as much. I find 4x charges plenty for Rich and imo I don't think Rich really needs it. Otoh, would one miss the 5% fire resistance and the +3% torp protection?

I hope this class of ships make it into the game at some point

Hi. I've played NY and played Texas (very similar to NY) extensively. I watched your replay/youtube vid and will comment on a few simple things that I do differently. I'm not THE best BB player ever and my way of playing may not be the best, but I believe they are at least better and could solve a couple things. I'd say give them a try! At spawn I see you basically going almost straight to the middle, turning your turrets to the left while going to the north-west. What I would do differently is at the start make a choice. Either I go left side of the map or I go right. If I were to go left, I'd pre-aim my turrets to my right side of the hull (so I'd be going left and have my turrets aim towards the top of the map). Especially at 3:40 I can see you have a difficult time to aim all your guns at a target, while the island (though giving you cover from the right side) blocks your shots to your right side. Partially due to you wanting to aim at the red ships at the 4:00 mark, you end up sailing towards the middle of the map, get spotted and focussed. The NY is a ssssllllooooooowwwww ship and basically you tried to get out of that bad spot, but were too slow to react fast enough (or the ship is too slow). So basically this: At the start, turn in one direction and support there. And pre-aim your guns to the other side (so if your ship turns left, you turn your guns to the right. If your ship goes to the right, turn your guns to the left). This isn't set in stone but I believe this kinda-rule will help you improve till you get a bit better and know when to deviate from this 'rule' of mine. And another tip: If you want to look around, press the (I think it was?) right mouse buutton so you have the free camera look. This way your turrets continu aiming towards one difection while you can look at the other direction. I hope this helps Btw, your aiming seems to be pretty good at first glance when looking at your Wyoming vid.

I disabled them again as it seemed to make no difference. I also tried reinstalling Aslains but that also didn't change anything, or at least seems to not have changed anything. I think I'll try again later.

Apparently it was blocked by Windows Firewall? I enabled both instances (World Of WarShips with a number behind it) but still no dice The firewall also doesn't mention anything being blocked, is it possible a web extension is blocking it?

If Stalingrad is the tier 10 steel equivalent of the tier 9 Kronstadt, it kinda would make sense that, due to Salem already being a tier 10 USN steel cruiser, Alaska would be a 750k fxp tier 9 cruiser. It makes less sense to me to have 2 tier 10 USN steel cruisers and no tier 9 USN freemium. This makes me think it makes more sense to put Alaska in the game as a tier 9 instead of a tier 10. Perhaps you are right that all new high-tier premiums will be for steel..but I sincerely hope not

It does seem like a firewall error, but how do I fix this? :P I don't get any popups. I removed the 0.7.5 mods folder (the 0.7.6 one has only a text file in it), didn't install (or deinstall) any (old) mods, didn't change the problem. I'd also like to point out that I didn't have this issue with the arsenal during PTS.

Yes, it looks like this:

1. Description The arsenal seems to be unavailable to me. 2. Reproduction steps Press the "arsenal" button to the left while in the port. 3. Result Instead of entering the arsenal, I get a page with on top "HTTPS://ARSENAL.WORLDOFWARSHIPS.EU" in white letters. Below it, in the middle, I get "WEB SERVER IS UNAVAILABLE" in orange letters. Having asked a clanmember he seems to be able to enter the arsenal. I had mods installed previous patch but haven't reinstalled them yet. They shouldn't cause a problem but maybe they do. 4. Expected result I expected to click the Arsenal button, then enter the arsenal and see what's in there. 5. Technical details 11:02 Central European Time

Seems my arsenal is unavailable, anyone else having this problem?

Link to these leaks? Afaict the devs were still undecided about whether it was gonna be fxp or steel. There was no 100% certainty that it would be a steel ship. And besides, if it had already been decided, why would these threads on this forum and the NA one still be debating this steel/fxp issue? I don't think it's set in stone yet and it still has to be decided. Partially because players have more fxp then steel to spend. Also fxp is easier to come by. And theres talk about it being called a "steel wall", to me it's pretty clear why such an anticipated ship being put behind a steel curtain would make people upset. It may not be as important to you, but it will be for a lot of other folks.

Not some über super duper great game this time, but on my very first salvo of my first game of today with my Pensa (which was basically just a warming-up), I managed to citadel a KGV? I thought brit BBs were almost impossible to citadel

Same here, I'd love to have both but will probably have to choose (thanks to using some for some upgrades on Izumo I'm 200k fxp short for a single ship and alas I'm not filthy rich ). I think Alaska would be nice for the USN to have because they don't have a freemium anymore after the removal of Missouri (or add one of the other sisterships? ). Fully agree with this. I can imagine quite a lot of people (particularly on US server) getting upset if a ship they've wanted for a long while gets hidden behind the steel wall (including me ).

What kind of person is this friend of yours in real life?

I actually quite like this idea! I don't mind battlecruisers having the speedboost alongside the French BBs but I think having battlecruisers with speedboost (and I'm also kinda thinking German battlecruisers like Mackensen and Derfflinger or Hms Tiger) would be fitting. I think Scharnhorst was always a battleship, but it was a bit undergunned (even more so then their battleships/battlecruisers in WW1) but I think that also had political or praktical reasons? Battlecruisers in WoWS can (as it seems) have either BB or CA/CL logo, but I find it hard to balance Alaska vs any tier 8 and up BBs. Lets hope it is released as a fxp tier 9 cruiser (similar to how Kronstadt is implemented), or at least that is what I'm hoping for @exocet6951, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here

Couldn't have said this better myself. I suspect these landslide victories are for a large part contributed by elite players in organised and (somewhat more) disciplined divisions of 3. That's 25% of the team. Put that vs a div of 2 (maybe 3 or 2x2) of casuals and I can imagine where these landslides are coming from...and the complaining to people like myself even for being a useless potato or a coward and the vast discrepancy of elitist purple unicorns doing the most toxic complaining (and negrepping, all 3 of them). The only thing left to do is check the player divisions that had participated in said landslides, but seeing as your post already explains this bit it seems the cause has been found I would however ABSOLUTELY NOT want to limit in any way purple unicorns from divving up together for randoms..that would be absurd The question for me is...do we want to change this? And if so, then how? But most important thing is that knowing what is behind the observations here.

So how would you envision Alaska be put into the game as a 'lower tier' BB? And if there are many ways to balance single things like smaller caliber guns, they might as well (as planned) balance Alaska as a tier 9 cruiser, right? Kronstadt has been out for a very short time so it's mostly the better players that have Kronstadt, scewing the stats upwards. Of course not. Don't you think you misread or misinterpreted some things here? (And not only here btw )

Again, people are complaining about a lot of things and a single remark about what the devs might have said maybe years ago isn't really relevant. I don't see how you could balance Alaska into being a balanced tier 9 BB? Then why would you even suggest putting Alaska into tier 6? You also said this: And why are you making it such an important point to claim Alaska has BB armor? It has not Well now, so what exactly am I projecting onto you here? And how does that make Alaska a tier 6 BB? It's armor won't be enough and another thing.... I think having BB tier 6 Alaska right next to a BB tier 6 PEF would be kinda ridiculous...it's basically all WW1-era stuff they put in there. Even Gneisenau would do better then Alaska there. How would you propose to make Alaska fit in there? Do you happen to have a problem with Kronstadt? It might explain your resilience to putting Alaska into tier 9 as a cruiser. Well at least I now understand this bit here better. But it still begs the question of how you would envision Alaska be put into WoWS as a 'lower tier' BB? If put into tier 7 it would be kinda like a Gneisenau, but without torps, without relevant armor and mediocre guns and with slugging manoeuverability and an overkill of AA. You would need to buff a lot and nerf the AA a LOT to make it fit into tier 7, you'd kinda have to make the WoWS Alaska a fantasy ship out of a ship that really existed There's tons of people who want Alaska in the game so lets not suggest it supposedly doesn't fit anywhere into the game. If Kronstadt fits into this game then so does Alaska, and that's basically nuff said. Even the devs said it would be a tier 9 (or god forbid tier 10 steel) cruiser and they have my full support! (except for the steel tier 10 bit lol).

I think you're missing one of my points. It is kinda irrelevant in which category Alaska is going to be put, be it cruiser or battleship (though DD is probably stretching it ). What matters is balance here, not category and it wouldn't be the first ship that is kinda half one category and half another. I never said it would be easy to fit this ship into the game, but I think it's worth a shot. Not the entire forum was displeased about too many BBs (except when you mean all those people on the forums that are very displeased with almost anything in the game). Alaska is in fact not armored like a lower tier BB (which kinda means pre-WW1 or WW1 ships?), it is armored like a bigger cruiser (which it is). I'm not so sure why you mention the history + trumping gameplay, I wasn't talking about history or historic accuracy, I'm talking about what Alaska is (or was). It's a cruiser, a large cruiser. And why try to shoehorn a ship like Alaska into tier 6? That would be strange, especially now with Kronstadt out. If Kronstadt fits in tier 9 then Alaska should fit in there as well. And I think it belongs there, WG will make it work somehow The paper ships attacking each other, we have only the Japanese to blame for creating the Yamatos and the other countries not building anything comparable