Uglesett

As I mentioned in the other topic, arguing about single games is pretty pointless. All they prove is that someone had a good/bad game. If you want to actually see the effect the presence/absence of CVs has on the impact of DDs, you basically have to divide the results of a statistically significant number (probably a couple of hundred) of matches in any given DD into CV and non-CV matches and then compare the average results of the two categories.

Confirmation bias? I mean, I have my fair share of games where what looks like a surefire victory turns into defeat because my team potatoes. I have my fair share of games where I potato, and possibly cost the team the victory. And I have games where the enemy team potatoes and I get an easy victory. The thing is, it's the losses that stick in your mind, while the easy victories are quickly forgotten. And the past is viewed with rose-tinted glasses, you forget that things were probably about as good/bad a year or two back.

"Being overly effective against" != "Makes completely useless"

Yeah, this has been getting on my tits as well. It'd be one thing if it went away after you'd clicked it once, but as it is it's just an irritating distracting element in the UI that you can't get rid of.

Short answer: No. Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Liquidator could be changed to "sink an enemy ship by flooding" and it'd still be a pretty rare achievement nowadays

Soo, you're basically suggesting that Dreadnought achievements should be handed out willy-nilly just for playing e.g. Nelson or Conqueror almost as badly as you want?

Yes: The joke.

They'll probably drop in the premium shop on Friday.

Your first error is thinking this is their actual role. CVs are designed to be damage farmers, everything else is incidental.

Then I guess they'd better get their arses in gear and make the HNoMS Stord

They could just do a sale of HMAS Perth, that'd be fairly low hanging fruit. Heck, I'd pick her up since I don't have her yet.

If they're going to do a pan-euro legendary captain, my vote is still for Skule Storheill. Both for having an awesome name, and for having the sheer brass balls to take an S-class destroyer to within 400 metres of the Scharnhorst to launch torpedoes.

He's got a lot of talents, but I don't know if Michael Caine's ever been considered one of the "funny guys" of the UK film scene. Also, no idea about his gf.

7.7 km base concealment is about on par with ze Germans. Z-52 has 7.7-something base concealment which gives about 6.1 km with full stealth.

Ok, so try to bind F4 to a consumable and then try to trigger it while holding down the ALT-key

Sauce? There's nothing about it in the dev blog forum section at least.

Calling it "pro fire" illustrates pretty well that you don't really understand what you've read. Yes, there are quite arguments that we should step away from a lot of modern forest management, and allow forest fires in remote areas to burn naturally. There are several reasons for this, but one of the most important ones is that by putting out forest fires, we allow a buildup of dead material on the forest floor. Which in turn is quite flammable and in the long run makes future forest fires worse. And yes, a lot of life in forests is dependent on occasional forest fires, within limits. Or, you know, we could just start sweeping the forest floor And yes, a lot of plant- and wildlife in the affected regions of Australia are indeed adapted to a cycle of bushfires and can cope quite well with them as long as they are somewhat within normal parameters. Funnily enough, this year's fires are definitely not within the scope that life in those areas has evolved to deal with. There's a lot of work being done to help animals that probably could have coped well with the kind of forest fires that they are adapted to but have problems with fires of this scale. And that work could definitely do with some financial aid.

Because you have to spend your money on it? I mean, it's not as if it's unprecedented, they've done charity sales for veteran ships (USS Texas and that submarine I can't remember), they've done it for Save the Children, they've probably done others I can't remember. If you want to complain about charity sales, you're a little late to the party.

So, basically something similar to the Gallant, but with an aussie accent? I might consider picking it up, it'd probably work just fine with my Haida skipper. I think cloning the Daring would be a bit much, given that she's a T10. I don't really see WG doing that anyway, but something in T6-T7? Sure. There is so much wtf in these posts, I don't even know where to start.

I'd still like to see a RN premium CL that: a) is possible to get hold of without gambling on containers b) actually works well with a tech tree skipper

Single screenshots or match results aren't really demonstrating much, though. If we were to get scientific about this, the ideal way of doing it was to play a statistically significant number of games in the same DD (unfortunately, that's probably at least a couple of hundred games), divide them into CV and non-CV games and compare the aggregated results of the two groups. That would take into account the factors that may not be readily apparent when you're just playing, and show how much the presence of CVs in the match affect the performance of the DD player.

Dunno. I might have picked up the T7 or 8 if it had shown up, but the point is moot since the first bundle was just camos and signals.