Aethervoxx

I've seen the 10.7 Subs in NA in co-op battles which EU will be seeing tomorrow (Thursday). You will get a 20% chance of seeing subs on your account for each day you log in until, I believe, everyone who wants to play Subs will be able to try them out. You also get this 20% chance per day to access T6, T8 & T10 Subs. I got first day access to T6. * I'm not sure it's a good idea to give this kind of free access to T8 & to T10 Subs especially for newer players but WG is doing this (apparently). So far, it's either all real players on the Green Team or a mixture of real players & Bots (does this thrill you?). As to the Red team, that team can be all Bots (does this thrill you?) or, I think if I recall correctly, a mixture of real players & Bots depending on what in in the queue (I suppose). With regard to the mechanics - I'm still learning these - I've not yet practised diving much - just periscope play (which appears to be OK). With regards to what WG will learn from this 'co-op sub testing' - I fail to understand the relevance of most of this data they will collect - to me this appears to be the old computer adage ....."Garbage In = Garbage Out" One last comment, we will be hearing a lot of BBabies crying loudly soon plus (I sincerely hope) all the farce reworked CV players crying too (I know, we can 'dream' can't we).

Subs in random battles are inevitable.

It would nice to see Ocean more often. Weren't most battles with motorized warships fought on an open ocean or sea? It would be nice if woWS would offer (preferably) a dedicated clan flag slot for sale. I'd spend money for that (Odd how WoT & WoWP has clan symbol spot but WoWS doesn't). It would be nice to see an Ita DD tech tree line. It would be nice to see a Commonwealth Cruiser tech tree line. It would be nice to see a Commonwealth DD tech tree line. My most fervent wish is the return of RTS CV play.

... so it's a 'cleric' character then ....?

Since we could pick only one reason in your poll I chose the one I'm already doing (which is the majority choice). I used to spend some money on WoWS product(s) but not since the horrid CV rework, etc, etc, etc *. *etc = practically everything WoWS has done since said 'horrid CV rework'

Thanks for mentioning this, Pikkozoikum, I had forgotten this (it's kind of so obvious maybe that's why I didn't mention it, lol). There are some must have skills for each class as it is, so stealth bonuses (or, at least, one) would be a perfect fit for a Sub. Stealth IS the skill Subs need.

All I will say is that, since LWM left as a CC (& gave her reason), there appears to be a lot of Forumites who do think WG has done some 'outrageous things'. There is a clear majority here. You (& some others) are the minority opinion on this. You are entitled to your opinion. Of course, the Forumites themselves (all of us), are a minority of the WoWS player base so WG will likely weather this particular hurricane/tsunami/typhoon. However, there is & will be considerable damage done to WoWS (as if it needed any more than it already had ).

I've been dabbling with the Subs in co-op battles and I have finally taken a look at the Sub Cpt skills. It is my opinion there are too many conditional ones, eg : if A happens you get a B bonus. I suggest these bonuses just be a bonus with no condition at all. Also, the highlighted skills by WG developers are rather odd. As Subs die easily why would anyone use AR (adrenaline rush) for example? I note there's barely any torpedo Cpt skill improvements yet Sub torpedoes are, essentially, the only weapon they have (the pea shooter deck gun, if present, does not count). Just my doubloon coin worth comment.

My estimation is 'they' are compiling dossiers (it's what 'cerebral' police do)

Subs are only temporarily in co-ops - as long as this current testing is going on. &, fyi, you don't have to play co-op if you don't like Subs being there. Why not play randoms?

It's good to see independent reviews of commercial game companies. You reap what you sow (as the saying goes).

Again, stopping play after seeing a blatant cheat roflstomp battle. Ofc, if it had been a roflstomp W, I'd likely have continued playing, however, neither type of this kind of farce battle should happen at all.

I found the opportunity to play the T6, T8 & T10 Subs in co-op to be instructive (if nothing else). I really only learnt surface & periscope depth play. I found both of these to be OK. I cannot comment on deeper depth play as I am still learning that. It definitely is more difficult to learn. Do I find the Sub speeds or the Sub torp speeds to be 'historical'? No. WoWS is more, imo, arcade than simulation & WG has to get Subs to 'work' somehow since WG is determined to push Subs into WoWS. I would say Subs have to have good surface stealth and even better periscope depth stealth or they will be too weak, too easily encountered. Since Subs will be in WoWS, I will play them (at least T6 ones) and I want to see Subs in random battles as soon as they are 'officially' launched.

Yes, there is that calculation but there's like ... 234 or so CCs so that's a lot of 'arithmetic' (me). You need this guy ... .

I've done the rough calculation of the number of CCs who have resigned/left since this LWM fiasco and the number of listed CCs on all the regions. The numbers, as given by the two relevant posts/links is 27 CCs left to 234 total CCs. This is 27/234 = .115 or 11.5% of the CCs who have left as a result of the LWM fiasco. I'm just pointing out the 'arithmetic' here. (My personal opinion is evident in other threads)

... you mean you 'gave' WG money ... ? ... you mean you 'might give' WG money ... ? ..... you mean you 'did give' WG money ... ? Ummm, .... have you 'learnt nothing' since the CV rework? ... or even practically 'anything' since & including this LWM/CC disaster of a continuing fiasco?

WoWS already has some Dragons, the East and the South Dragon. They were, I believe, 2500 doubloons each at the time. Thing is, WoWS never fully monetized that offering as I am still waiting for the other two Dragon ships to be sold, the North and the West ones. (A bit too late now, ofc, as my wallet is now closed)

Your post is an opinion as well. "unattractiveness" of RTS CVs? Another personal opinion of yours, imo. I found RTS CVs 'very attractive' to play (unlike the current broken reworked CVs version).

It had occurred to me that you are, since you asked.

Myrmix, you got your memes all wrong on that airbrushed history photo. WG is Stalin (the central figure). LWM is Yezhov (the one airbrushed out). So you mixed those two up, imho. The other two you identify with the contributor symbol - not completely apt, perhaps, but I'd put Sub-Octavian closest to Stalin. The one on the left - just pick some other relatively unknown WG flunkie of note.

Not for me and many other players who enjoyed & relished the challenge of 'real management' of plane squadrons (not to mention the CV itself). This was very easy to like (even for a non-Unicum CV player such as myself) What a tired horse retread off the point entirely argument to trundle out. Since when were RTS CVs the preserve of 'super geeks'? I only highlight this partial quote to reinforce what a rediculous contention 1MajotKoenig makes here. The Developers originally made CVs RTS style so, then, according to your contention, 1Major Koenig, they must be the 'super geeks'?

As usual - quitting right after the blatant WG MM & RNG CHEAT.

OP didn't even spell his/her/it's name correctly (& why pick a lame name like that to begin with?.

This is probably correct. The big concern was if a Unicum CV player was slotted up against a poor CV player. However, this washes out in random matches. Sometimes the enemy team had the better CV player(s), sometimes not. Even this argument loses some potency from this very fact. Another problem is/was having more than one CV per side. Why WoWS never instituted a hard one CV cap per side is beyond me. As to some CVs being OP, well, that's WGs fault for not balancing/tweaking the CV in question.