Captain_Newman

I'm tempted to say - the way you play the Emile is sail broadside to every BB you can find and only get overpens on you.. She seems quite trolly in that regard, at least if I'm the BB Seriously though, trying to force torpedo usage on cruisers is usually what gets inexperienced cruiser players killed. Bonus point for what I call the Tirpitz / Donskoi maneuver, but it's applicable to anything with torps, really - going broadside in front of a bb's bow so you can maybe land one torp while he blaps you off the map.. don't be that guy. In a french cruiser, you usually want to be kiting at range on a flank, dealing damage. You're especially valuable if the enemy is trying to push, then you can easily kite and burn them. Torpedoes are highly situational and should be used late game in opportune moments (island ambush, BB chasing you, etc). Try to resist the urge to yolo BB's to torp them, mid to high tier you'll just get blapped.

Thunderer is primarily an AP ship. Yes, the HE is good and should be used in some situations (bow in Yama or Kremlin or w/e), but it's AP is too good to be played as primarily an HE spammer. It's similar to Warspite in that respect, in a line full of HE spammers here's one that should be primarily shooting AP. If you're going to be playing an HE Thunderer, you may as well just play the Conqueror, instead, it's better at it due to a higher volume of shells.

I own it and it doesn't burn any more than any other BB. This is some weird observational evidence, probably spiced up with some confirmation bias. The Musashis that burn a lot will be the ones with no awareness, that park bow in to a bunch of HE spammers when they're the only target to be spammed, without a proper captain build, then wonder why they died. This is no different to any other bad BB. Before you say stuff like that, you might want to check his profile. Between the two of you, you're the one that does more losing. A lot more. Based on every measurable metric, he's a very good player. As for Smolensk, the typical potato complaint that you'll also hear when playing something like a DM, Kutuzov, or whatever - hiding behind island or smoke (as in, the way these ships are played) and potatoes call you cowards because you didn't sail point blank in front of their heavily armed and armored bb so they can blap you, but instead used intelligent positioning to burn them down from cover, because you understood how spotting mechanics work and knew you could stay invis while he can't. Trying to outtank and outbrawl a BB in a cruiser isn't bravery, it's misplaying it in almost every situation (exception might be a late game Hindenburg torp ambush, if you're sure you have the HP to pull it off). Also, Smolensk is infamous for being an overpen pinata, it's literally one of the most complained about things about this ship. The combination of heavy BB AP and paper armor just leads to it being overpenetrated when it should be citadeled. This has nothing to do with BB's aim most of the time, just the way they designed the ship, there's nothing to arm those shells. This, incidentally, is why you see it HE citadeled, it's actually easier to cit with BB HE a lot of the time. A mino is far easier to citadel then the Balans Dispenser 9000, aka the Smolensk. A bad Smol player will sit in the middle of his one smoke puff as he spams, and get hit. Even then, he's safer than a Mino, because of the above mentioned overpen mechanic, and because of a render bug that renders the shell tracers higher than where their origin point was. Meaning your blind smoke blap had more to do with luck than anything else, most likely. Saying a Smolensk is more fragile than a Minotaur is objectively false. Now, one thing I agree with, Thunderer is a better coal investment, simply because it's more fun and less toxic to the overall gameplay. Owning both, though, Smolensk is simply stronger. It shouldn't be, and I don't like that it is, but it's stronger.

The answer to your question is "never". If they were unaware that there is an issue, then there would be a chance, because there would be a chance they'll figure it out and then act. But I'm convinced they know there is an issue, and simply don't care. Since this situation isn't hurting them financially at present, they really couldn't care less.

TBH the way they use it I wouldn't be surprised if someone asked WG to include an option to play tetris in that weird little square in the bottom right, what are those weird looking icons, anyway... WG, gib minigame pls.

I would like to ask everyone to, from this moment on, stop calling destroyers "DD's". The new name is "triangle s**tface". Tell your friends. We must switch to this new naming convention ASAP! WG, any chance you guys can be convinced to change the class name officially?

A: there is no AA powerhouse in the game, closest that comes to it is probably the Friesland atm. Zao? AA powerhouse? Don't do this to me, man, I nearly spilled my drink... B: Kaga is nearly impossible to deplane. C: Slingshots exist.

It's not all about the service cost, the raw earnings are greater on t9 freemiums afaik. But feel free to compare any of the t9 freemium bb earnings to, say, thunderer.

That's definitely a part of it. Another part, aiming can really differ depending on the CV. Trying to adjust aim with rocket planes on a Kaga vs. Enterprise? It's not even comparable. From his post, I'm going to venture a guess that this experience wasn't on the Enterprise

I don't think stating clearly someone is bad at a computer game is a characterization of someone as a person, and therefore isn't insulting. Especially not when posts are clearly written with good intention, from a place of giving advice that gives the best possible chance for improvement to the recipient. OP's stats after over 1k games are plain bad. Establishing that is the first step in addressing the problem - if there's one common factor to all the low 40's WR potatoes with thousands of battles behind them, it's that they'll all say they're good players and try to justify their bad performance by blaming it on their teams, say stuff like "but I don't stat pad in op ships", etc etc. If someone wants to improve, they need to not be that guy. To do that, they need to realize they're bad - it's not the end of the world - and then they can start doing something about it. People need to stop being snowflakes.

As usual, blame their team for their 42% WR and move on to ruin another game...

Some of them are ok-ish looking (Devonshire, for example, Surrey and Hawkins aren't that bad either), but that poor Goliath.. she sure isn't winning any beauty contests, ever.

Kagero was cursed pretty hard for me. Usually when I was done securing my flank, getting my cap, killing or driving off the enemy DD, I'd look up to see the team completely gone on the other flank.

But, afaik, the built-in credit earning potential is greater on t9 freemiums. Which is why a Musashi, Georgia or JB will earn more than, say, a Thunderer given identical performance. Not even mentioning the Missouri since she's a special case. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, no problems there, but I'm fairly sure t9's make more, had plenty of battles to see that's the case...

I do get ships that seem to be cursed. Usually it's the "new ship curse"; no matter what you do, your teams melt every time... best to port queen them for a while when it starts happening consistently.

Unless you play the Friesland

Goliath and DM fill different roles, so making direct comparisons is a thankless task, but regardless, I highly doubt it'll be overall better in terms of game impact. A well played DM will have way more carry potential.

Have not voted because the option "no change needed" is missing, making the entire poll skewed and irrelevant. What do you think of my post here, btw? A) It's awesome! B) It's pretty good, I agree, can I be your friend? C) You, sir, are absolutely correct, have a beer, or D) Good post. There, I included more than enough options for you to vote for, have fun expressing your opinion through them.

Perhaps rearrange the tiers a bit just for this mode, then? I know it seems complicated, but it might make sense since some of the ship's B hulls need to be excluded...

There's a reason I nicknamed it "The Incapable"

Fair enough. It's still almost impossible to deplane, which is a dumb gimmick imho.

Depending on the line, you can go up to t6.. QE, Warspite, Bayern would be top dogs in ww1, A hulls though. Problem is uniformity across the lines, I don't think something like a t-61 would fit particularly well, for example. You could cut it off earlier, but it seems a shame to exclude the toughest BB's WW1 had to offer...

For a split second there, I thought your 3 year old child made a proposal It most likely won't ever happen, as WG don't seem particularly interested in these tiers, but personally I'd love to see a WW1 authentic ships / weapons mode.

Interesting, I didn't realize you get 1/4 built in on 234's... Only played this line up to t7 so far.

I had a game 2 days ago where I had AA defense expert, 50 plane kill game (only one of those was a fighter). Total amount of enemy planes shot down was 138 that match by the entire team. Kaga was able to field FULL squadrons of all types right until the end of the game. We still won and he still played it badly, but the fact remains that you shouldn't be able to strike with full squadrons after losing north of 100 planes... I didn't see this guy drop many fighters, but let's be generous and say 20-25 of those 138 planes were fighters, that's still north of 100 planes killed. All he has to do is cycle through squads and do the occasional pre-drop, and he never runs out. It's dumb.