BLUB__BLUB

That does make sense to me. Also, might be this thing: I got the T4+T6 RN from the event,the T8 will be quite a while yet. But I had the T6 US already and I'm a bit further along with the grind on the T8 US. So yes I'll field the T8 US a lot more/sooner than the T8 RN, too.

Yeah I know. I was there before the rework, too... When any good CV would delete you in one strioke, no matter what you did and no matter what ship you had. Unless he was two tiers lower and you had an AA- specced monster. That is because CVs are also stupid. I only kill DDs when I have to or see advantage or something. Leave the DD hunting to ships equipped to do that. Sure a CV can hunt DDs. But what for? Sometimes you MUST hunt them. But usually... Usually the CV is a dodo in the middle of a bunch of moronic ostriches. If they stick their head down into the ground sure it will peck their dumb rear ends. If they decide to stampede it is soon extinct. ...they should just team up and attack. Div up! Me and my teammate usually do, we do ~10 games in an evening. In that evening we usually kill ~3 CVs. Just casually, because we end up spotting them and are usually 'forward players'. If we go hunting CV, we kill 8 or so. We do that sometimes (if we need to grind credits, we team up Hood/Sims). We used to team up Lion/Udaloi too which was just as bad fo CVs (if we had premium rolling) but since we now both have T10... But if we wanted the CV we'd get it, same a a CV wants you dead, he'll get you. The thing is how much time/effort do you want to spend. ANd how many other ships ar in the way, or are you willing to 'let go'. No worries. I play 'the other side' too, just haven't gotten beyond t6 with the carriers. I do have T10 though and getting up there with others. So I do know what it feels like 'under' T8/T10 CVs... Not really a problem, at least not worse than having an Edinburgh with T10 BBs and DDs...

It is food for carriers... if I see it in game on the red team, certainly it is the first ship I'll go for when I play T6 CV. It has no air defence whatsoever and to a CV it is just big floating XP-piñata. I'd not recommend it for randoms. However if you have no CV in game (co-op, operations) it is a very strong T6 with the biggest guns ever. First decide what kind of ship you like. Then buy a premium that is sort of similar. Like this: I like BBs and cruisers, and operations (T6/T7). So, I bought Hood, T7. Fast BB. Might have bought a T6/7 fat cruiser or something (Belfast, but that wasn;t on sale anymore). I also got Arizona, and Texas (I like the New York and it was on sale) and someday I'll get Warspite. I see you have Texas as well... it's great eh? I also have Exeter and if they bring a T6/T7 nice cruiser I might get it. What makes it more likely: if I am grinding that line, so I can re-train 'dumb' captains for next ship. I understand why you're not interested in T8/9/10 as that gameplay is also not to my liking... and no operations for those tiers. Might get some T10 coal/steel but I'm just grinding those for Clan Battles, probably I'll sell all the T8/T9 once I have the T10. Seeing you're about just as "good" as me... mind that some premiums aren;t any better than the silver ships, just different or even harder. If you like DDs, take Sims, good credit earner and craps on planes (for a DD) and you do OK in Nicholas. But the Okhotnik is just hilarious... I'd get it if you like DDs (as it is cheap, too). If you like BBs, well, Arizona is the next step from Texas... or maybe Hood (which is kinda different though), or Dunquerque (which has certain strengths nd certain weaknesses). If you like cruisers I'd say Boise (but depends... US cruisers are quite squishy!!). Exeter is great too (but no T5 operations), but it's not on sale I think.

That too.

Yes that is one way they fail. The other way they fail is they all get to exit, but they forget to kill all the ships that have those 'rings' on them. As such they fail to get all the stars...

Tell me then, why does only the US navy stll have a BB... and the rest all scrapped them... ...and changed them to CVs and subs. Balanced, comrade, working as intended. WG style - balance is always off. You were in the DM? That carrier must have been quite good then. Well yeah that is the way CVs work. If you can find them they are quite defenseless against surface ships. Duh, I have no problems with carriers whatsoever. In Conqueror they are a minor pest. DDs are far worse, you do not see them but suddenly their fish pop up, and they hit hard. Some cruisers they sit behind mountain and they spam you to feth, without me being able to shoot them. So? Once I find them, and same with CV, I can kill them. Well you my think so- it may even BE so, in T10 (though I don;t fins t it to be that waty in T10, but i havelimited expereince). In T6 a carrier is not much better than a cruiser, and certainly not so powerful as a BB. Bit BS, I killed lots of carriers. Usually in T7 me and my teammate kill one each match. Usually because the other one (if there is one) is dead already. Sims + Hood, try it. Dunno what enemy Lexington, seems to me it was YOUR Lex, both were worse than Hakuryu, and Ibuki, and Currywurst. The losing Lexington doesn't have much difference with the two top ones. The winning Lex there is quite some difference. Maybe you had good carriers there - not much difference between them and Ibuki/Currywurst though. Usually I do not see CVs ending up top anymore, unless the CV players are actually good. But good players usually end up TOP anyway in DD or BB or whatever.

Well, then either you had the wrong ship, or you misplayed, or the CV was alien stupily good. I usually keep them busy at least 2 flights. Will cost him 2-4 minutes to kill me, and he can't do anything else. Wg hich is why I usually leave DDs alone when I play CV. CV can kill anything, eventually, and if they BOTH want you dead - well then you are dead. But overpowered? I think I killed more CVs with other ships than I killed DDs with a CV. Also, other ships kill my CV lots of times.

@Beastofwar I wonder why you are surprised about Udaloi/Grozovoi... Yes the are called DDs but there's cruisers that are smaller. IMO they are small cruisers. With a sh..load of AA and good torps, just they call them DD because Ruski's lacked smaller ships. Their detection range also sucks... same as a cruiser. Ruski Mini-minotaur.

Hate to disappoint you but that is exactly what WG wanted. Working as intended comrade BTW even I am not half bad with them.

I know, therefore I wrote SPECIFICALLY these forts should need BB fire. Maybe a T2 ELITE mode would be nice, as in, having a SOLO T2 battle, only T2 ships allowed. Or making it so only players with > 2500 battles can grind out the T2 pre-dreadnoughts.

I'd say they need to do something else as well: change the cap circles and make them into fort-islands or coastal batteries, which have to be shot up by battleships first in order to be capped. That way, the side that loses the BBs, well, loses the battle. Unless they manage to sink every other ship in the enemy fleet. WOuld make a nice change to gameplay as well.

Must see: and then some:

I'm pretty sure this is historically accurate (the guy is a ship historian, check out his other videos). BTW it did state some of them got sent back or didn't start at all... Including that supply ship that kept yelling 'submarine detected'...

I did... it is exactly as I put, you just elaborate more. They had to drag their ships half around the globe. No wonder they lost, and indeed teh Japanese had better ships - considerig they were planning to invade china and all that. As I stated... But you may want to consider this too:

Mind we'd still have Langley and such stuff IMO... but well... BTW reason the Russians lost the war there was because of them having too little ships to take it to the Japanese. Not that they had only bad ships... thye had a few good ones, but they had to take them half across the globe. By the time they got here, they were out of ammo, out of coal and severely encrusted with underwater growths. Then again, the Japanese knew beforehand what they were doing. They had more modern ships and better seamanship. I think it's a waste WG lets the low tiers sort of rust away in port.

Ah well, I just got explained by my son how to use the 'map aiming reticule', I did use it but not very succesfull. Very inaccurate. I always use it when a teammate detects a red ship in a storm. You can then fire at the red ship, without seeing it, using the map. He pointed out that you can move it MUCH MORE ACCURATE while holding shift... And there is me, trying to move the thing with the mouse, millimeter by millimeter... cursing and all...

You have to press TAB as he is in the enemy team... I sometimes forget to do that too.

I know, I used it a lot. The biggest effect is the surprise. Sometimes they even give broadside, because they think Monarch cannot fire AP. Unfortunately, sometimes you find out Monarch can miss a broadside Musashi at 7km... Crosseyed AF...

FTFY...

It would be a very very expensive game if that needs to happen. I don't mind a bit more 'operation style' stuff though. Currently there are only T6/7 operations, I'd like more of them.

Hermes could be revised and called 'Port Arthur'... They might win it this time...

Yeah those are in the pics if I'm not mistaken. Loads of thick black smoke would be in order, indeed.

Finally you are thinking the right way!!.

I think they'd just have gotten some under lend/lease, and possibly with US planes as well. Russian shipbuilding was not that high in WW2, but hey... they did have enough submarines...

Yep, I'd suggest WG make a whole lot of premiums in T2, the pre-dreadnoughts. A lot of people being sick of high tier MM and gameplay can then pay money to relax. I know I would... Something like USS Oregon, at T2, would be great fun. With 'coal bunker armour' they'd be resistant to any kind of torps/AP but burn pretty good... Would take a long time to put them down, so it will be entertaining for other players in T2 as well. They'd not have to cost much (T2? 10 euro?) but I bet WG would sell a lot of them @MrConway And they could be the subject of some 'events' too.