arttuperkunas

@YabbaCoe Can you tell me which of the many, many, many BBs/Cruisers in this game that have ASW planes "historically" had ASW planes at their disposal?

Only one of these will land you in the gulag.

I would suggest the M*****v, but I might get sent to the gulag for mentioning the M word.

This would make sense, as the whole concept of "operational depth" is bizarre. What kind of "operational" capacity would a WW2 submarine have below periscope depth? It can't see anything, the only instrumentation it has is a passive hydrophone, and it can't really fire at anything.

Even then, the faster speed IRL was afaik only applicable to the Type XXI, not to the Balao. From a game design POV, it would make sense that subs are unrealistically fast on the surface, but more or less realistically slow underwater, so they trade risk for effectiveness (as every other ship does, with the possible exception of CVs). That said, I do agree. At least judging from WG's earlier publicity materials, it seemed they did believe that DDs would be a big counter to subs. Which is quite evidently not the case right now.

The issue of sub speed really depends on what WG wants the sub/dd interaction to be. If they want it to be more a case of subs revealing DDs than DDs hunting subs, then it's probably more or less fine. If they really want ship-dropped depth charges to be a viable weapon rather than a tool of last resort, then sub underwater speeds need to be looked at.

Ok, I had a little trouble parsing the text you cited (which I did read, but did not fully understand). I suppose that does mean that the torps will no longer ignore torpedo protection.

@YabbaCoe, can you clarify something in the devblog. It said double pinged homing torps no longer get bonus damage... However, can you please clarify: a. do they still ignore torpedo protection? b. do they still lead to citadels? As far as I can see, this was not addressed in the dev blog one way or the other. (edit: as a sidenote, I think it's hilarious that subs have "exceeded" their popularity goal; the five year plan was completed in four years! huzzah!)

Plus playing Stalingrad "against" Subs is a hell of its own. If/when they stay that will be a further nerf to supercruisers in general and Stalin in particular due to its preference for static play, bad concealment, and terrible maneuvrability.

As much as it pains me to see Balansgrad and Petrodreamlovsk nerfed (as I own and play said ships), this is a step in the right direction. One thing I do find a bit annoying is the cheese grater approach where they nerf/buff in such small increments. It does make sense, but I would like to see a roadmap for what they consider the desirable end state of the ship to be, in order to assess how attached I should be to the ship in question.

Don’t get in the way of all the gaslighting, it’s very rude.

Another DEEP_SHARKS thread... was not disappointed. This is like performative art.

I am also super interested in the Ragnar... Probably have to wait for my resource coupon though.

While I agree with your assessment (and have to take responsibility for my own tone, which was needlessly mocking/aggressive - mea culpa for that), I note that OP seems to make posts that are purposefully provocative/written in a tone that invites replies in kind. Almost like he is trying to get people to break the forum rules.

Yes, but DID YOU SMOKE YOUR ALLIES YOU SELFISH B*GGER! I would have reported you for that.

I had very serious lag yesterday, like multi-second freezes in the middle of battle, something I've never seen in this game before. Glad to know I wasn't the only one.

Why do you refer to scholarly sources? A. Do you have the background necessary to understand/interpret them? Or to place them within the larger body of scholarly studies that they are part of? Do you understand whether they represent the mainstream view within that particular academic discipline, or whether they are outliers? Are the studies peer-reviewed? Are they credible? B. Why do you cite the sources in the first place if your argument is based, in the end, on "common sense" and what you "think" rather than actual data, or logical inferences derived from applying a rigorous empirical method to a body of good quality data? Forgive me for saying so, but your references to these articles seem more like an appeal to authority rather than their having anything to do with the matter at hand. (edit: for the sake of clarity - I have a background in anthropology from my previous life as an unemployable academic bum, so I have at least some understanding of how these frameworks work, and what goes into a good questionnaire/interview, and how you interpret the results)

Another corollary of this is the freudian school of anthropology. I remember reading some anthropological article from Papua New Guinea that basically boiled down to this: Q: Those yams kinda look like [edited], don't they? A: They sure do. Conclusion: Yam farming is connected with ideas/concepts of male fertility. Q: Those yams kinda look like [edited], don't they? A: Um... not really? Conclusion: The informant is repressed and unable to vocalise his real thoughts/feelings on the matter. Yam farming is connected with ideas/concepts of male fertility.

This is what always bothers me. It's like... the data is flawed, so surely this represents a sample that is biased against us. But... why? What is the assumption behind that conclusion? Why does the bias always run one way? This way of approaching data analysis reminds me of the way that marxist historians used to interpret facts, i.e. "false consciousness". So any way you look at the data, you get the "correct" answer. Allow me to give an example: Scenario 1: Q: Do you feel that this (whatever) is the result of an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production? A: Yes, I do Conclusion: The informant answered yes, therefore our hypothesis is proved correct. There is an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production. Scenario 2: Q: Do you feel that this (whatever) is the result of an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production? A: No, I don't Conclusion: The informant is the victim of false consciousness; the imbalance in the means of production operates at a level of society which he does not perceive - the fact that he answered "no" proves that the hypothesis is correct. There is an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production.

I know, but this is literally what it feels like to us in terms of how WG interprets data.

I'm going to just assume this was some unintended irony demonstrating how WG reads feedback.

WG have found their perfect customer. Jumps straight into high tier by buying every new premium on sight, blindly defends WG, and flames the old lags who actually bothered to learn the game.

I have it on good authority that this is an optical illusion caused by excessive forum whining. -Yosha_nai, probably

The trick is to have only one person in the ring, as the more ppl are in, the faster transilvania moves. We usually have just the jackal in, occasionally ramming trans to get it to slow down when someone needs to come in and heal. It’s basically not doable at super hard without a full div on discord, and difficult to get 5 stars on hard.

We got 4 stars on super hard and called it quits. Quite fun to do stuff together, with no CBs right now.