Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'gameplay'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 31 results

  1. Ranked Matches der Season 9: Richelieu (#1, #2) Großer Kurfürst (#3) Shimakaze (#4, #5, #6, #7, #8) Eine Übersicht der Unternehmen: Kirschblüte (#1) Kleine Übersicht der Schiffe (Videos) die wir uns in Zufallsgefechten angeschaut haben: Tier 10: Schlachtschiffe Yamato (#1, #2) Großer Kurfürst (#1, #2, #4) Republique (#1, #2, #3) Montana (#1, #2) Conqueror (#1) Kremlin (#1) Kreuzer Minotaur (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5) Des Moines (#1, #2, #3) Moskwa (#1) Hindenburg (#1, #2) Henri IV (#1, #2) Zao (#1, #2) Worcester (#1, #2) Smolensk (#1) Colbert (#1) Venezia (#1) Goliath (#1) Zerstörer Shimakaze (#1, #2, #3, #9) Gearing (#1) Z-52 (#1, #2) Chabarowsk (#1, #2, #3) Yueyang (#1) Harugumo (#1) Grosowoi (#1) Daring (#1) Tier 9: Schlachtschiffe Missouri (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5) Alsace (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6) Musashi (#1, #2, #3, #4) Lion (#1, #2) Kreuzer Saint-Louis (#1, #2. #3, #4) Roon (#1) Neptune (#1) Kronshtadt (#1) Seattle (#1) Alaska (#1) Drake (#1) Zerstörer Z-46 (#1, #2) Tashkent (#1, #2) Chung Mu (#1, #2) Udaloi (#1) Kitakaze (#1, #2) Tier 8: Flugzeugträger Lexington (#1) Schlachtschiffe Richelieu (#1, #2, #3, #4) Kreuzer Cleveland (#1) Edinburgh (#1, #2) Irian (#1) Albemarle (#1, #2) Zerstörer Hsienyang (#1, #2) Asashio (#1) Ognewoi (#1, #2) Akizuki (#1, #2) Kiev (#1) Tier 7: Schlachtschiffe Lyon (#1, #2) Nelson (#1, #2) Scharnhorst (#1) Kreuzer Fiji (#1, #2) Indianapolis (#1, #2) Boise (#1) Helena (#1) Surrey (#1) Zerstörer Leningrad (#1) Gadjah Mada (#1, #2) Shiratsuyu (#1) Minsk (#1) Tier 6: Schlachtschiffe Arizona (#1) Bayern (#4) Normandie (#1) Kreuzer Perth (#1) Dallas (#1) Leander (#1) Nürnberg (#3) Zerstörer Västeras (#1) Shinonome (#1) Gnewny (#1) Tier 5: Schlachtschiffe Texas (#1) Giulio Cesare (#1, #2) Zerstörer Visby (#1) Weitere Schiffe (ältere Videos): Gneisenau, Ibuki, Kagero (alt), Schtschors, Iowa, North Carolina, Baltimore(alt), Campbeltown, Colorado, Fubuki (alt), Budjonny, Myoko, Nürnberg, Bayern, König, Kaiser, Nassau, Langley, Diana, Gnewni, Independence, Kamikaze R, Kongo, Aoba, Molotov, Hosho Lg & viel Spass beim anschauen Ach aka abzy
  2. Ion_666

    Ion_666 on YouTube

    Hello and welcome to my YouTube channel. My name is Ion_666, and I've been with World of Warships since the open beta, but only on YouTube since October 2018 (Ion_666). The channel was started as a way to keep old replays of games I for whatever reason enjoyed. In addition to the actual gameplay I talk about what I was thinking during the game, why I am doing certain things and potential mistakes from myself or other players in the game. I also feature games from other players (mostly from my clan, OFFS, but I'm open to showcase good games from any player). To learn more about our clan, please visit the recruitment page. Hopefully one day I'll become a CC (please help me with that?), but for now my aim is to both entertain and educate, so head on over, watch some good games and say hi if you see me in game. --- I'll start this off by posting a CW game we had against CR33D, who help us demonstrate an important lesson, that you should never assume.
  3. Hello everyone! My name is CodePhantom or Anthony if you find that better to say and I started my Youtube channel back in 2012 doing random let's plays and the other basic YouTube stuff but now I want to heavily invest myself into this community and make more videos on Warships. For now I have made meme videos since I feel commentary is not my strong suit, though I do want to get into making different types of Warships content. Here are the first few proper videos I decided to put all my effort into in order of being made.
  4. Hello Captains!! I create this post to present Pirates Army Youtube Channel in which you will find World of Warships videos and content related. I have been playing for two years and the Channel is not new, but I have been reading you and posting in the Spanish Community as Spanish CC. More than 200 videos with Gameplays in which I show how I play with all kind of ships, Streams for new ships (Premium or Tech Tree) and Events/Contest in which we let players get some kind of prizes, from Premium Accounts, Slots or Premium Ships for example. I try to do with the max quality I can to offer you the best experience, playing in 4K and recording in WQHD/2k/1440p Let me show any of the last videos, I hope you enjoy and thanks for your time. Youtube Channel Link - Pirates Army Youtube Channel Good Luck, Fair Winds and Following Seas Captains , I am sure we will see if still didn't.
  5. Greetings all, long time no post. I originally posted this on the NA forums about two weeks ago, and I really should have cross posted it sooner, like I used to do back in the day before I fell through time and space or something. Regardless, I feel it's important that I push the message, especially since WG's historical article on the new Royal Navy heavy cruisers was released, I don't have problems with the article itself, but the ships themselves... that is what this thread is about. The cycle for the RN CAs development is drawing to a close. Being an aficionado of most things RN, I should have been excited when I first saw this ships. I wasn't expecting them so soon, not a priority, but here they are. And my initial reaction was cautious, and has since sunk to a deep disappointment and contempt. For, at least in my opinion and based on what I know, the gameplay and historical accuracy of these ships is rather lacking. I'll list the historical stuff first. Gameplay stuff at the bottom. Maybe dump the proposed statistics I have for the Trainspite patent superior RN CA line™ in a different thread later down the line. If you don't care for what effectively mounts to historical nitpicking and whinging about fake ships, fair warning. I'll try not to get too sidetracked from my purpose of pointing out perceived mistakes, WG have done some good, and a whole lot of not so good with the line. Hawkins Personally, the obvious choice for a T5 RN CA, a class that was the forefather of the WNT CAs. The ship has been modelled in her 1930s condition, after a refit which converted her from coal to oil firing. The A-hull represents Hawkins quite well in this form. There are still a few issues though, especially with the B-hull. - For both hulls, Hawkins has twin torpedo tubes mounted on the deck. Historically, the class had six, later reduced to four fixed tubes in fixed beam mounts.This is a gameplay decision, much like with Furutaka, Trento and Zara, to avoid having a regular cruiser without them. Perhaps they could only appear on the B-hull, but I digress, such sacrifices are sometimes necessary. Others though aren't. - The A-hull has what seems to be an acceptable AA scheme, perhaps representative of just after Hawkin's reactivation in 1940. Personally I would switch one pair of 40mm for the 7.7mm in the bridge wings, making more sense given that is where further AA was fitted. - The B-hull AA is mostly fictional. Hawkins never carried any quad 12.7mm. The quad 40mm pompoms on the stern are nonsensical. Effectively WG haven't modelled any other AA positions, and inserted whichever AA they felt like at the time. At least the part that is correct are the quad 40mm pompoms in the bridge wings. I made a nice little graphic from an IWM image of Hawkins, showing her 1944/1945 AA outfit. This would be best the AA should get. And it's not like it is bad for T5 either. Applying this AA outfit to the 1930s model of Hawkins is a better solution than just making an entirely new AA suite up. - One thing that is noticeable from the above image compared to the in game Hawkins B-hull is the secondary 102mm / 4" armament. After refits in the 1920s which removed the original 76mm secondary guns, Hawkins would carry 4 single 102mm to her end. In game, for some inexplicable reason, Hawkins has these replaced by very out of place dual 102mm (Mk.XVI) which barely fit in the places where the single 102mm (QF Mk.V) should be. - Onto a more specific model issue, the director behind the aft funnel is in it's later 1940s condition, being anachronistic with the otherwise 1930s model of the ship. Below are two pictures from the 1930s of Hawkins with this earlier, more prominent director, compared with the wartime director which Hawkins has in game on below. Note the central location of the rangefinder on the structure, along with it's height above said structure. This director is also shown in the profiles in the Perkins Identification Guide Volume 3 for Hawkins. - Alongside the aforementioned issues, Hawkins may also have an armour mistake, with the sections of armour circled below being 51/57mm in game, but should be 38mm (at least according to Jane's). I'm unsure of this one since I haven't got any other sources for it, but it is worth noting nonetheless. Devonshire Devonshire is not exactly the regular County class representative most predicted. The sub-class leaders/name ships were Kent, London and Norfolk. However, WG have only modelled the London sub-class hull. The Kents had hulls with significant differences, so personally I would use the very similar Norfolk as the regular ship over Devon. Certainly there is no particular reason to include Devon other than London being a premium and Kent and Norfolk not being modelled. Also personally, this ship should be at T7, the conceptually similar Surrey being my proof of this. - Devonshire has been modelled in her 1944/1945 refitted condition. This refit removed her catapult and aircraft facilities, alongside her X-turret, removed in favour of extra AA. Once again, the model seems relatively accurate, but with one big exception. Devonshire retains X-turret. Which casts confusion as to why WG decided to model Devonshire in a condition where she only ever had 3x 2 203mm turrets. - Because Devonshire has the original eight 203mm guns, the AA is obviously thrown into wack. Two quadruple 40mm pompoms and various 20mm oerlikons are missing as a result. The B-hull upgrades this to have octuple 40mm pompoms, and many sources back this up, however from photographs, such as the one below, it appears only quadruple 40mm are fitted, which is a bit unusual. Also note the suspiciously absent X-turret. - The shells Devonshire uses in game are incorrect. According to the statistics from gamemodels3d, these shells are the type supposed to be fired from the new 203mm guns that would arm 1940s new build RN CAs. This is evidenced most easily through the 811mps muzzle velocity, opposed to the correct 855mps that can be found on London and Exeter. - The permanent camouflage is also accurate for the period of 1944/1945 for Devonshire, except that the colours are incorrect, since WG are basing these camouflages on a book that misrepresents several RN camouflage colours. As much as a like my green shades, the RN didn't really have them based on historical analysis by others. This also applies to the camouflages of Surrey, Albemarle, Drake and Goliath, which are based off schemes worn by Norfolk, Sussex, Suffolk and Kent respectively. Surrey Surrey is a bit of a mess in game. It should be simple enough, the planned ships are not a mystery. The model for Surrey looks incredibly rushed over with regard to some details, as if some details have just been excluded or passed over. Especially around the amidships deck area. Which is a shame since otherwise it follows what I would expect. At least one previous issue did get fixed for Surrey, so maybe I can cross some off the list below in the future. For now though, they massacred my boy. - For reference, I'll use a shipbucket drawing of the Surrey-class as potentially completed. As far as I know, the plans for Surrey and Northumberland never included the Exeter-style bridge, but the two planned cruisers afterwards did. It seems likely that the former two ships would get this addition though. - Surrey has the same problem as Devonshire regarding the shells used. They are also of the wrong, more modern 1940-era type. - The bridge in game is excessively tall. Effectively two entire deck levels too tall. Compare to the drawing above, or Exeter, or Leander, and Surrey in game. Personally this ruins the ships looks, giving the ship an ungainly forward heavy appearance. It isn't RN practice around the time this ship would have been built either. - The Surrey class as planned and likely built would have the same catapults as Exeter, two fixed catapults on deck, angled off each side. In game, Surrey has a single rotating catapult, which was a feature of earlier preliminary designs, but Surrey and further heavy cruisers of her type would most likely not be completed with one. - The belt armour in game is a straight 152mm, while I have only ever seen the Surrey-class and two follow on cruisers quoted with a 5.75" belt (146mm). Backing plate differences might explain this, but I can't confirm. - The tripod masts are exceptionally tall, in particular the tripod legs, which again adds to the ungainly appearance. I would suggest at least reducing the height of the legs so they meet the mast lower down. - In game, Surrey gets rebuilt from her planned 4x 1 102mm/45 QF Mk.V, to having 6x 2 102mm/45 QF Mk.XVI. All other County class cruisers only had 4 of these mounts fitted, so Surrey being fitted with six in rather basic fashion along her sides with small overhangs on her hull feels forced on WG's part. - Regarding AA, Surrey would have been originally built with 2 Octuple 40mm pompoms. This should really be represented on the A-hull, but isn't since only quadruples are present. - The machinery module for Surrey in game displays a value of 110,00shp. Surrey was planned with a 60,000shp powerplant, which was the cause of the lower 30/30.25 knot speed. Improved versions were considered, and could potentially be module upgrades. Albemarle This ship is another Frankenstein's monster product, as it is the hull of Neptune, outfitted with a different superstructure and the triple 203mm turrets alongside other statistics from the 1939/40/41 RN CA designs. In other words, a fake or fictional ship. At least it's name was changed to something more appropriate of a period RN CA (still waiting on Cheshire to follow suit). - It is easy to tell that this ship is derived from Neptune, a 1944 design, rather than the authentic RN CA designs which died out beforehand in 1942/3 From the slope of the transom stern, the lack of a knuckle on the bow, to the raked funnels and the structure of the armour scheme. I even counted and noted the position of the portholes/scuttles and they matched near perfectly. Call that boredom, insanity or dedication as you seem appropriate. - The superstructure has obviously been changed from Neptune, but it doesn't resemble what an RN CA from 1940 would look like. The bridge has some serious overhang, especially compared to contemporary RN cruisers like Superb and Swiftsure. The funnels on new builds CAs would be straight with no funnel caps, as opposed to the raked Neptune funnels on Albemarle. - Compared to the January 1940 15,500t cruiser design (shown below) that I presume this ship is pretending to be, the hangar is in the wrong place, as this design rather unusually had the hangar just fore of the second funnel, as opposed to the more familiar hangar that is attached to the back of the bridge and forward superstructure, which was a feature of later 1940 and 1941 RN CA designs. - The torpedoes are in a cut out in the hull, and this is decidedly against RN practice of the time. Future 1941 CA designs that followed on had torpedoes added on deck, and there is no reason to believe a cutout would be needed. The cutouts in Surrey are a one off I believe, to save deck space and topweight. There were no such concerns for the vast majority of later CA designs. As such, a more appropriate place for the torpedoes would be on the deck, roughly alongside the second funnel on the drawing below. - Once again compared to the design, Albemarle has 6x 2 4.5" Mk.V, ripped off of Neptune. The 4.5" secondaries were only introduced to 8" armed cruisers in 1941 from my memory. In any case, the 1940 design that is most well known about has 6x 2 102mm instead (as per Edinburgh and in game Surrey). - The 1940 design above shows the general arrangement of the ship, the shipbucket drawing based on two known reproductions of the original plans. The hull of this design is similar to Neptune's in dimensions, but not the same, and comes from an earlier generation of cruiser. - The machinery estimate for this design was 125,000shp, Albemarle in game has 110,000shp listed. That seems to have been inherited from Neptune too. Either that or it is combining stats from the later 1941 CA designs which had significantly cut back armour. - The AP shell of Albemarle's 203mm gun (the Mk. IX / Mk. X) has the incorrect weight, since they are 116.1kg in game, the same as the AP shells from the earlier 203mm Mk.VIII on the County class. 131.5kg was the weight of the new AP round for the new gun as reported. It's a funny situation when Devon and Surrey have taken the shells from Albemarle, yet Albemarle's AP takes somewhat from the earlier shells (still got the newer velocity, drag and other values). Drake Personally, I would like to see this ship as a T10. It's certainly capable of it (or at least was - I'll keep quiet until it is released for good). I believe this ship is one designed by W.G. John, one of the series of larger cruisers he had looked into from 1938-1940. However, either WG have chosen a very experimental version of the design that I am not aware of, or they have made a number of silly mistakes that defy what the RN would have done (Kind of like how the fictional ship Dallas defies a few USN practices). Which is a shame, since I have suggested the 9x 9.2" RN cruiser design under the name Drake for 2 and a half years at this point, and I obviously have a bit more of a keen interest in this RN CA over the others. - Starting with the most major issue to my eyes, and it is underneath the waterline. The Royal Navy wouldn't use a triple shaft arrangement for a modern cruiser, during the 1930s/1940s, it was basically an exclusive arrangement to the new aircraft carriers like Ark Royal. Every single other cruiser built for the Royal Navy in the 20th Century had either 2 or 4 shafts (except one, the Topaze-class HMS Amethyst). The best explanation I can think of is that there was a 3-shaft version of the design that attempts to save some weight, but that is purely speculative, I would love to visit the archives to find out. - I suspect this is a knock on effect from the triple shaft arrangement, but the X-turret sits needlessly high up, which is a waste of topweight, and creates a large exposed barbette to hit. It wouldn't be part of a chosen RN cruiser design. - The same issue as Albemarle (and all the T8-10 RN cruisers for that matter). The torpedo cut outs. As already said, they were basically a one off for Surrey, and most new RN cruiser designs like the 1941 designed CAs had the torpedoes mounted on the deck, generally around the aft superstructure. - I do question the type of 4.5" (113/114mm) secondary used on Drake. As design in 1939/1940, the 4.5" mount used during the designing stage would most likely be the Mk.II BD as seen on Queen Elizabeth, Illustrious and Implacable. If completed during the war, it would most likely be these mounts on the new cruiser. If construction dragged into the post-war period, the 4.5" Mk. V as seen on Daring and Neptune would probably be substituted in. The current Mk.IV mount just seems unlikely. - The style of the 9.2" (234mm) turrets is also questionable. It follows the design pattern of the Battleship calibre turrets with flat fronts. No design of a triple or twin 9.2" turret was ever completed, (or a triple 8" for that matter either), but it seems more likely to me that the design would follow the previous cruiser turret styles, with a sloped front and the middle gun moved back. This style of turret is modelled for the triple 8" on Albemarle, but the 9.2”-armed ships get this flat faced turret, as if they are trying to imitate RN BBs. - The machinery of Drake is listed at 102,000shp, which is suspiciously on the low end of things. Considering the 9x 9.2" design of February 1940 was slated to require around 160,000shp to get it moving at 33 knots. - The citadel end armour should be 114mm, not 177mm thick IIRC. - The biggest issue is the guns, and I will detail them more with Goliath below. Suffice to say, nearly everything about them looks to be incorrect. From shell, to designation, to turret. Goliath This ship was confusing to me at first, and still is to some extent. Umbaretz mentioned in a developer thread that this was Scheme III from 1938, again from the pre-war large cruiser designs armed with 9.2" guns. And some parts of Goliath back this up. These designs had a 203mm thick belt initially. But the appearance of this ship always threw me off. It's decidedly modern, decidedly post-WW2. Lattice masts, Vanguard style funnels, 4.5" Mk.V mounts and a flush hull with no knuckle on the bow for seakeeping. A lot of these features can just be waved away as being refitted to a ship in construction, but eventually I have reached a conclusion that at this point I feel is the most likely case. Goliath is most likely a fictional ship created by WG (surprising, there are so many of them these days). The basis for the design may lie with the 1938 designs, but the ship has been modelled in a way as if it was constructed entirely during and post-WW2 akin to Vanguard, with a large block like superstructure (with an ugly overhang on the bridge). Some of the basic statistics and features of the 1938 designs may have carried over, but this is a substantially new ship, a new ship created in St Petersburg. That being said, I would love further information, from the length of the model, to any sort of response from WG. I can't be completely sure of my theory; I have neither the time or money right now to book visits to archives in the National Maritime Museum and check. I'd love to in the future. If any information is around that would question my points in this thread, I would welcome it. - Getting back to the ship, it has a familiar issue. The torpedo cutouts are unsuitable as mentioned before. The 9.2" turrets are of an unlikely style. But I did say when going over Drake that I would talk about the 9.2" guns, and how they appear to be completely wrong, and thus I shall. - In game, Drake and Goliath use the 9" / 234mm/50 Mk.II, it has a muzzle velocity of 841mps, a shell weight of 185kg and shells simply being AP and HE 6crh. This weapon doesn't exist., and the combination of statistics are implausible. The 9"/51 Mk.XII was a gun built in limited numbers that saw service on the Norwegian turned British monitors Gorgon and Glatton. These guns were all gone before the 1930s and certainly weren't in contention for arming any new build heavy cruisers. The muzzle velocity was originally 881mps, from the Mk.XI gun, (not the 896/933mps of the Mk.XII), 841mps, alongside the 185kg shell weight weren't part of any 9.2" RN weapon system. The most likely option to arm new CAs with 9.2" would be the 9.2"/47 Mk.X, armed with new Mk.XIIa APC shells To quote @piritskenyer... The 9.2" Mk.X was a much more numerous and successful weapon, with enough barrels left to arm 2 to 4 new heavy cruisers. Using supercharged values, the muzzle velocity would be 875mps, opposed to 838mps normally. The new shells were 177.4kg in weight. To sum up, the 9.2" in game arming Cheshire, Drake and Goliath don't match anything I know of regarding the 9.2" RN guns. Maybe others can try and shed light on that. London and Cheshire also aren't available to the public, so I'll be brief. London miraculously is almost completely accurate for her 1943 condition. Which sometimes takes my mind off London being one of the worst experiences in the entire game to play, but that is dangerous territory to talk about.The one thing that lets London down historically is the camouflage, again being based on a flawed understanding of RN camouflages. In this case, London sports a scheme an all over Green and Grey scheme from 1943. From looking at a few photographs of London from the period, it should be rather obvious the ship was not painted in all over olive green. The correct scheme by my reckoning is a base of light grey (507C/G45), with dark grey (507A/G10) patches on the hull, with B30 blue patches on the forward superstructure and funnels. I made a stunning piece of artwork to show what I believe London's camouflage should be (coming soonTM) it's here, my thoughts on London in a bit more detail. Cheshire is the fake brother of Albemarle. Same damn cloned Neptune hull, with twin 9.2" slapped on it. Only this time it gets the RN post-war treatment, with an extra pair of 4.5" mounts at the expense of the catapult and lattice masts. Same abnormal torpedo cutout, same questionable style of 9.2" turret as the T9/10, all the same 9.2" issues as said above, same old fake/fictional ship. Hopefully it goes back to the fires in the pit of hell from whence it came (and it can take the other fictional RN ships back with it - Monarch, Conqueror/Thunderer, Goliath and Albemarle). Gameplay It's meh. It could be a lot, lot worse. The ships could be gimmicked to high hell and back like the RN CLs, or DDs, but they aren't. Which is something at least. The main traits of the line as I see it are: - HP Repair - Increased HE Damage/Fire Chance - Low RoF / restricting damage - More minor things like single fire torps and good concealment. A problem I perceive is that the T6 and T9 ships are currently one tier below where their natural tier should be. Surrey is definitive proof of concept that Devon (and London by extension) should be T7 ships. They are not dissimilar in stats, and Surrey is the far more enjoyable and effective ship to play. Comparing this to T6 Devon, it feels limited by range and reload, making it a rather frustrating experience to play. One moment you can rule the roost, and the next you are utterly useless with little effective damage and no capacity to fight back. London is like that to an extreme degree, and is one of the most awful experiences and pieces of game design thusfar. Plus, there is the bonus of having the historically active ships from T5-7 if the County class was at T7. Could get a T6 York along the lines of the initial version of Exeter with that. Albemarle suffers from being a cloned Neptune hull, with a cloned Neptune citadel. It is massive, and thus the ship isn't adept at dodging unlike Surrey and has a pronounced vulnerability unlike the other RN CAs. It is a fake ship though, so I care little for balance. It deserves to suck, I wouldn't try and buff it to compete with the overpowered Baltimore or Charles Martel. Hawkins has the potential to be decent, but there are a few things that really hold the ship back. The massive citadel surprisingly isn't one of them, as in my opinion, the 9s rudder shift, combined with a 14s reload, and poor firing arcs on the rear 3 turrets make Hawkins very awkward to use effectively. The ship feels as if it is working against you. A buff to a 7s rudder shift comparable to Furutaka would allow some greater flexibility, alongside allowing the turrets to traverse to their maximum potential firing angle. The ship is a decent fire-setter can should usually be played that way, so strictly speaking, the reload doesn't really need to be buffed. But lowering it would make the ship more comfortable and reliable. The T9 and T10 are still not in public hands, so I have to be limited in what I say. Nothing too detailed, I'm no CC afterall. Else the KGB Black Ladas move in on my location. I think their armaments have their damage capacity stifled to too great a degree. Having relatively poor shell arcs for the size, combined with near 20s reload makes the damage severely situational. Not far off acceptable, but uncompetitive as of current. Perhaps one of the more obvious problems with their gameplay, at least for me, is that the ships are relatively unexciting to play. In their current state, they don't really have a place outside of taking up a cruiser slot on the team. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean there is no incentive to play them. Due to the historical ships being shoved a tier down, there are only two of them in the line, opposed to 4 paper ships, and 2 of those paper ships are fictional designs, you won't play these cruisers because they are British or because they have any historical gravitas behind them. They aren't suitable for competitive modes since they lack options, a defined role and flexibility. In random battles they are just about acceptable, and that is the best that can be said of them. I have compared the line to a mix of Japanese and Italian cruisers in the past. Japanese for the focus on HE, Italian for the relatively long reloads and having ships that are 1 tier below where they should be. Obviously it is not as simple as that, but that is the feeling I get. Personally I would make a number of significant changes to the line, but then I would, wouldn't I. I'm itching to lead a crusade against some of the unnecessary fictional/fake ships in game. Albemarle would have to be re-modelled from scratch barring the turrets and parts of the superstructure. The other less egregious models likewise. My main proposal for balancing RN CAs before this lacklustre attempt from WG was to give the ships increased plating. Enough to be able to auto-bounce roughly half of the BB calibre AP shells at that ships tier. The T10 would have 30mm fore and aft plating, and 32mm amidships and the T6 would have 25/27mm for example. It has it's balancing ups and downs, but it could create a line of tougher CAs, with a distinct playstyle. Certain aspects from the current CA line would carry over too, we just don't go overboard on gimmicks, other features would be no super HP repair, and HP repair, along with radar, gets added at T8, though probably in the same slot as HP repair to force some choice. Right now, the role these ships have is filled in a much better way by existing ships, which is not great, not terrible. The 3.6 Roentgen of cruiser lines. I would probably go create a thread about my 'superior' CA line in itself, considering I have had most of the statistics bobbing around since 2017. I'll link it here if I post it on this forum. For those that have braved through this wall of text, I appreciate your patience, thank you for your time.
  6. Damagd

    State of the game?

    What do people think of the current state of the game? A lot of complaints towards carriers and the push to introduce new ships and new lines. I'm in the middle about the whole situation, on the whole I'm still holding on to my love for this game, there just isn't anything else out there that gives me the rush of a Dev strike and sailing ships like the Bismarck and Yamato. At the same time as a very amateur DD player, I dread coming up against carriers but I enjoy playing them from time to time with the Ark Royal being my favourite. HE spammers don't particularly annoy me too much just because there are countermeasures for them where as with carriers AA doesn't seem to work well unless the carrier is bottom tier. Premium and freemiums aren't issue to me either really, I've got 90% of the premium ships in the game and I love my Stalingrad regardless with its reputation for being overpowered. I always like seeing new ships, I myself am very excited for the Siegfried, Agîr, Odin and Mainz. But I am frustrated that we have yet to see the Siegfried and the Agîr seems to have taken priority over it. I definitely feel they should announce ships, release them and then announce more rather than keep announcing new ships when we're still waiting on one's that were announced almost a year ago. Do i think WG is so out of touch with their player base that it could die out? Possibly. Will I stop playing if more bad decisions are made? Definitely. Those AP rocket planes are in no way beneficial to the game.
  7. Robię nowy topic, ponieważ stary mi się przestał ładować... Lista playlist z World of Warships: World of Warships Gry z początkującym graczem - World of Warships Best team ever - World of Warships Prawie się udało - World of Warships Uwolnić Krakena - https://www.youtube....I4d4d3jumHaIR8o World of Warships Bitwy rankingowe - https://www.youtube....jM3rY4w2E-FHHV9 World of Warships Gry z widzami - https://www.youtube....QT2tOkn-xlGEm9g World of Warships Abort the mission - https://www.youtube....mCazTYwMstnWp8_ World of Warships Target destroyed - https://www.youtube....dsvuMwP5Uc42jrs World of Warships Marynarka - https://www.youtube....HRaRrRDCnUxkXmK World of Warships okręty premium - https://www.youtube....iBRUtTlj_sa152n World of Warships poradniki - https://www.youtube....55GEFJU-b1b8eXR World of Warships Beta - https://www.youtube....Yl_z7RvaSoJvPbH Najnowszy film: Gneisenau- World of Warships - Gameplay pl #3
  8. Ahoi Kameraden ahoi, Mein Name ist Helrig und ich daddel leidenschaftlich gerne. Am 16. Juni 2016 bin ich zum ersten Mal Live bei Twitch gegangen - gespielt wurde World of Warships https://www.twitch.tv/Helrig Meist beginne ich Mittags / Nachmittags mit dem Stream auf Twitch - Im Schnitt 5 mal die Woche mit einer Länge von jeweils ca. 4 Stunden. Fester Bestandteil ist Sa 14:00 / Fahren mit Zuschauern inklusive runterzählen zum reinklicken. Um den Spaß zu vergrößern - Es gibt auch Kopfgeld am Samstag - Versenke mich und erhalte einen Preis! Specials wie Dualstreams, Partystreams, Turnierübertragungen werden immer separat ausgewiesen. Der Streambeginn wird auch immer über discord bekannt gegeben -> https://discord.gg/zSjNNKD Über den bisherigen Zuspruch freue ich mich sehr (stand Juni 2018 = 4800 Follower - über 150.000 Gesamt-views, im Schnitt 80 Zuschauer zeitgleich online) und hoffe das die gemeinsame Reise noch lange anhält. Von Ende 2017 bis Mai 2018 musste ich aufgrund von PC Problemen leider ein kleine "Zwangspause" einlegen. Seit 11. Juni bin ich auch im Community Contributoren Programm von WoWs. Bei YouTube https://www.youtube.com/Helrig sind mittlerweile über 200 WoWs Videos in den Playlisten zu finden. Neben WoWs Gameplay und Fun Videos, gibt es nun auch Tipps und Tricks, Review Videos über spezielle Schiffe sind geplant. Einfach mal vorbeischauen. Discord https://discord.gg/zSjNNKD dient der Community als Austausch Plattform. Oder doch lieber gleich im Teamspeak schnacken? Dann hier -> Ich würde mich sehr freuen wenn ihr einfach mal vorbeischaut. Euer Helrig Und jetzt die Linksammlung: https://www.twitch.tv/Helrig https://discord.gg/zSjNNKD https://www.youtube.com/Helrig https://www.facebook.com/Helrig/ https://twitter.com/HelrigLP
  9. Hey Leute, ich mache seit kurzem Let´s Plays von verschiedenen Spielen unteranderem natürlich World of Warships. Ich spiele meistens mit Freunden aber auch ab und zu alleine. Ich würde mich extrem freuen, würdet ihr meine Videos anschauen und eure Meinung dazu geben. Ich werde hier immer wieder Aktualisierungsposts machen. Wenn ihr Vorschläge für Spiele habt, die ihr gerne sehen wollt, postet sie hier oder schickt mir eine Privatnachricht Falls ihr lieber hier benachrichtigt werden wollt:Google+: https://plus.google.com/b/106931035288486029781/106931035288486029781/aboutYoutube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCltrus9iAtLbbIHBMEoS1ug Ich bin ein durchschnitticher Spieler, es kommen aber auch ab und zu epische Sachen zu stande. z.B 4 kills in 2 Minuten, 6 Auszeichnungen mit der Derzki oder eine sehr spannende Runde mit der Farragut in der ich einige Tier 8 Schiffe zerstört habe zusammen mit meinem Divisionsmitglied. Lasst euer Feedback da, würde mich sehr freuen, wie über ein Abo! World of Warships
  10. Tuccy

    Weekly Warships Stream

    Captains, Tune in on Thursday evenings to catch our staff in a regular stream - get ready for questions, answers, gameplay, new ships and more! When? Every Thursday at 18:00 Where? Twitch and Facebook! https://www.twitch.tv/worldofwarships https://www.facebook.com/WorldofWarships/ Action Stations!
  11. Hello fellow readers, Please allow me to make a suggestion in respect to the carrier gamplay. On its current state, the game doesn’t let the player take full control of the carrier, a feature that I believe is highly essential. Before the carrier rework, players could manually control the carrier along with its number of squadrons individually. Its understandable that this was quite an overheard for the vast majority of players (including myself) and therefore the new system was well accepted. Though my opinion is that we jumped from one extreme to another. From controlling multiple units simultaneously to not even having the ability to control the carrier manually. In the need to simplify the gameplay one very important feature of the game was removed. The truth is that dodging torpedoes by placing waypoints on the map is ineffective and gives the feeling that the game doesn't take itself too seriously. The ability to make precise navigation around obstacles is also not there. The game makes the player feel “disconnected” from the ship and doesn't give the chance to properly control it, or even admire it, during battle. Personally, this prevents me from buying premium camos for carriers as I never actually get the chance to enjoy them. Let me please make a very simple recommendation. Add one extra button in the squad selection like this: [Carrier] [Rockets] [Torps] [Bombs] (Buttons: 1, 2, 3, 4) When the control is on the carrier, the airborne squadron flies on a straight line just like it does when opening the map to issue waypoints. With one extra button the player gets the following: - Full control of their carrier even when squad is airborne. - Ability to properly dodge hazards without having to return the squad. - Precise navigation when needed. - Chance to admire the ship in combat. Pros: Very simple to implement. Lots of added features. No added overhead. (Players may never select their carrier and just fly their squadrons as they do currently) Cons: One extra button on the interface. Thanks for reading. I really wish this reaches the right people.
  12. Moin mein Name ist Terrabyte_mw oder auch kurz Terra. Wie ich zu diesen Namen gekommen bin? Ganz einfach er wurde mir gegeben durch Freunde und Bekannte. Weil ich mit meinen Gedanken immer 2 bis 3 Ecken weiter bin bei einem Thema als andere. Desweiteren sammeln ich viele Informationen die ich dann auf meiner körper eigenen Festplatte speichere. Deswegen Terrabyte und das MW bedeutet machine wheeler das war ehrlich gesagt einfach ein Anhängsel weil Terrabyte schon vergeben ist in den meisten Games. :) Manche Fragen sich vielleicht was Blackspotten oder Moses Gesetz spüren lassen bedeutet. Kurze Erläuterung für euch: Blackspotten bedeutet ein totgeweihter Pirat und Moses Gesetz spüren lassen ist als Bestrafung gedacht kann man mit Kiel holen oder über die Planke gehen lassen vergleichen. Ich möchte euch hier ein Projekt vorstellen was uns zu WoWs Contributoren machen soll. Mit uns meine ich die charmante und etwas vorlaute Reikiko, fragt mich aber bitte nicht wie Sie auf diesen Namen gekommen ist und mir selber. Wir sind auch noch im Aufbau und lernen ständig dazu also verzeiht uns kleinere Fehler oder auch größere! :) Das Projekt nennt sich Team EXECUTOR oder kurz T-EXE! (der Name ist noch ausbaufähig) Kurz zu meiner Person: Ich spiele seit Juli 2015 WoWs feier also bald den 3 Geburtstag mit WoWs freu mich darauf. Den Youtube-Kanal hab ich schon seid ein paar Jahren, habe aber erst vor 4 Monaten richtig massiv losgelegt. Twitch läuft seit einem Jahr immer dann wenn es die Zeit zu lässt feste Streamzeiten gibt es leider nicht, denn wenn man wie ich in einem 4 Schichtsystem arbeiten ist das alles etwas schwierig. Also wir stellen euch auf Youtube und Twitch vorwiegend WoWs und WoT Gameplay und Info´s zur Verfügung. Wir sind über Kritik und/oder Lob froh. Denn nur mit Kritik kann man wachsen und sich verbessern aber bitte lasst auch Lob da denn das ist Balsam für die Seele :)! Haut in die Tasten und teilt uns eure Meinungen mit aber bitte haltet es im Rahmen und werdet nicht ausfällig oder bösartig. Wir sind keine Pro-Spieler oder irgend welche Spieler die geifernd und/oder sabbernd hinter dem Monitor sitzen und auf den nächsten Kill warten.(angelegt an einige Ego-Shooter Spieler). Was Ihr von uns zusehen bekommt sind News zu WoWs, Erläuterungen zum Spiel und gute so wie auch total verkorkste Spiele von der Sorte "Wie man es nicht macht" :)! Wir haben Spass dabei und Ihr sollt das auch haben. Reikiko wird sich euch auch vorstellen. Da bin ich mir sicher. Wir sind selbstverständlich über mehrere Plattformen erreichbar. Da wären: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TeamExecutor/ (dient zur Informationsbereitstellung und Kommunikation) Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJOB1DgTLa0SNc00jS-07Ug Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/teamexecutor (Stream und ausgewählte Videos) und natürlich nicht zu vergessen und extrem wichtig Discord: https://discord.gg/HwpNSNJ (dient zur Kommunikation, Informationsbereitstellung) Wir freuen uns auf euch. Beste Grüße Reikiko und Terra Habt Ihr hilfreiche Tipps oder Anregungen dann lasst es uns wissen entweder hier oder über die anderen Plattformen.
  13. vex_sunk_your_waifu

    Anyone getting a loading screen bug?

    Im having an issue with actually loading into the match it will find the game but i will get stuck in the loading screen and even if i close the application (which i cant do unless i restart my computer) it will load up and ill still be in the loading screen the mini-map will update my allies positions but it just wont load me in but in getting afk penalty's for it is anyone else having this problem and if so is there a way to fix it
  14. SHARKFORCE1975

    Rotten Potatoes

    Disclaimer: I'm not some super WoWS player with unicum stats through the roof,I'm just an average player who likes to play this game with his brain soaked in alcohol from time to time Over the last few weeks there has been a steady,and very steep(!),decline in "quality" of the playerbase. This isn't being frustrated with getting stuck with your run-of-the-mill potato teams,the level of stup!d I see in every match is toddler-level-dirt-eating-potato-madness! Match after match my jaw drops in disbelief as to why we lost again,think of every mistake or bad decision...and crank it up to 100! And how on Earth do all these players end up in my freakin' team!? It probably all has to do with new and returning players,which in itself is great of course...but at the same time gameplay and enjoyment of playing the game (for me at least) has suffered a big hit. The level of stup!d broke my spirit to play WoWS...and I'm guessing I'm not alone in this. (Yes yes,I know WG doesn't care...however,staying silent and just taking it up the rear-end is what a rotten potato would do)
  15. Capitainetim

    IA cassé

    Bonjour, Je joue beaucoup aux scénarios PvE et j’ai pu constater que l’IA des bots alliés ou ennemis est complètement cassé depuis 3 mois et c’est pire encore depuis 2 semaines 1 mois. Ça a commencé par les navires ennemis qui parfois ne bougent pas de leur spawn, puis certain navires alliés qui au lieu de s’arrêter à couvert derrière une île s’arrête au milieu de nulle part à découvert ce qui entrave gravement la mission et donc les chances de réussite. Plus récemment, les path finding se comportent bizarrement, les bots ennemie ne suive pas leur chemin habituel (se qui surprend et n’est pas forcément une mauvaise chose comme par exemple l’Atlanta "machinegun" qui passe plus souvent par la gauche que par la droite maintenant), mais perdent aussi souvent leur objectif de vue comme un convoi ennemi supposé s’échapper par le sud évite une torpille, essaye de rester non spoted et finis bloqué complètement au nord de la map ne savant plus quoi faire, nous obligeant à lui courir après pour le détruire, et le trouver bloqué contre le rebord de la map et ne pouvant pas naviguer vers son point d'extraction, mais nous ayant fait perde beaucoup de temps. Mais si ce n’était que les ennemies, comme je l’ai déjà dit, les convois alliés se perdent et reste coincé contre une île après avoir évité une torpille, le porte-avion ranger qui ne réagit pas du tout aux torpilles détectées depuis 10 km et se fait nuked par 6 torpilles (3 set de 2), ou encore s’arrête 10 mètres trop loin et n’est plus du tout à couvert le rendant impossible à protéger et menant quasi obligatoirement à la défaite. Lors de la protection du port, les 2 navires de réparation s’arrêtent eux aussi complètement à découvert au lieu de derrière les deux îles, les rendants inutiles et difficiles à protéger. Lors de l’invasion du port avec votre convoi, le navire-n° 3 une fois arrivé dans le port fonce tout droit sur l’ennemie sans se diriger vers son quai où il est sensé déposer ses hommes, là encore ruinant les chances de succès et empêchant complètement la réussite de certain objectif secondaire. Je ne savais pas où et comment faire un signalement sur ce problème, les tickets à l’équipe de support ne disposent pas d’une section qui correspond à ce sujet de gameplay cassé. J’espère que WG s’en rendra compte et va réparer son IA qui devient dangereusement non fonctionnel.
  16. Greetings, captains! As the title says, this topic is about the brand new Semi Armor Piercing(SAP) Shells that got recently introduced to the game with the Italian cruisers. So i got personal missions for Montecuccoli and Trento. After completing the missions, and testing them out i must say this Semi Armor Piercing is pretty interesting. It seems to be the best shell type of choice at near max range against broadside targets. When it penetrates the deck armor of ships, it can deal massive damage. A salvo of SAP dealing almost 9k to a New Mexico at near maximum range This behaviour of the Semi Armor Piercing shells will make Italian cruisers very effective at kiting, and quite dangerous, counting if you can lead your shots properly. Their high shell arc will make leading targets difficult, but if you're familiar with cruisers with high firing arcs such as the Dallas, you will adjust to these cruisers fast. It also is the best choice against some light cruisers, if they're slightly angled, if you cannot guaranteedly citadel them, and DDs of course. But unlike HE, it has a tendency to ricochet on sharp angles. Furthermore, Italian ships will not be able to set ships on fire AT ALL, since the SAP cannot set fires. For those of you who own some of the older premium Italian cruisers, don't worry. Those will keep their regular AP and HE shells accordingly This is my very short analysis of the new Semi Armor Piercing(SAP) shells. I'd like to hear your opinions too! Good luck, and fair seas!
  17. Hallo, ich habe eine Idee die Mir schon seit längerem im Kopf herum geistert und zwar geht´s dabei um Booster für Clan-Mitglieder. In World of Tanks war es glaube Scharmützel wo der Kommandant z.B. einen Booster aktivieren konnte, der dem Clan für 1 Stunde mehr Kreditpunkte,XP,CommanderXP oder FreieXP gegeben hat? Wäre es nicht Möglich das ganze in World of Warships einzuführen? Ich meine es gibt diese Möglichkeit in World of Tanks, in World of Warplanes (dort zwar nicht für einen Clan, weil keine Clanbasis aber man kann es so kaufen bzw. bei verschiedenen Events gewinnen) und vielleicht könnte man das in World of Warships mit der Clankeilerei kombinieren? Das man z.B. sagt gewinnt X Gefechte und bekommt dafür einen oder zwei Booster? Und man sollte es z.B. Beschränken, dass nur Kommandanten oder stellv. Kommandanten das aktivieren können, nicht jeder für sich. Natürlich beschränkt es sich auf Clanmitglieder, aber vielleicht regt es auch den einen oder anderen Clanlosen an einem Clan beizutreten... Man müsste die Booster nur dementsprechen kleinhalten oder balancen, dass man nicht übermäßig profitiert. Zum Beispiel für 1 Stunde (naja 1 Stunde wäre bei einem Spiel was 20mins dauert etwas wenig, vllt 2 Stunden oder je nachdem... 50% Kommandanten XP, 20% Creditpunkte, 50% XP usw. aber da sich World of Tanks ein paar Sachen von Warships abguckt zum Beispiel haben die seit längerem Hundemarken, wie wir hier die Badges, das Booster System ist in jedem anderen Spiel vorhanden nur hier nicht (für Clans) aber es würde vielleicht neuen Spieler in die in einem Clan sind helfen Ihre Schiffe zu kaufen, freizuschalten oder den Kommandanten zu trainieren. Ich meine, wer öfters Mal eine Linie zurück setzt, keinen Premiumaccount hat, oder größere Schiffe kauft, der würde das ggf. begrüssen wenn man mal eine kleine Finanzspritze bekommt? Fragt sich halt nur was Wargaming dazu sagen würde, ob das machbar ist. Denke einige würden das begrüßen. Lg Das Beispiel Bild ist zwar von World of Warplanes (ja ich spiele es tatsächlich manchmal noch, wie so wenige...) aber so in etwa könnte das aussehen. Natürlich mit anderer Beschreibung und Bildern für Schiffe halt...
  18. ObnoxiousJake

    Friendly Fire!

    So! Time for me to Complain a bit about the Team damage system implemented into World of Warships. I just played a match where I got a Teamkill warning/Penalty. Now, I would like to Criticize this mechanic because of HOW I got the Penalty. I was Merrily sailing along, Shooting at the enemy at Close range, When a friendly destroyer with 11HP is escaping from another battle. Since I was sailing a Battleship and he we not paying attention to where he were going, as he were too focused on what were behind him (Enemies) he sails into the side of my Battleship and dies which I were unable to prevent. Now, I know World of Tanks have just turned off friendly fire for their game, but I think that something like that should Deffinitely be implemented into World of Warships as well, Seeing as very few who play this game, are able to predict how fast we can maneuver our ships. Especially when we are on the line for the first time or under fire. And since friendly ramming happens so often, it's frankly Absurd that friendlies should take damage from hitting each other. That Destroyer might've lived, if he didn't have to take damage from nudging my ship, and Frankly none of us could stop the ramming from happening, due to the sheer fact that he were ducking behind an Island just outside a capture point, at the same time as I happened to pass it to get into shooting range of the Contesting ships.
  19. Hi fellow commanders, I have a pretty important question to ask, I have a Roccat Kova gaming mouse, it has some interesting built in functions but one thing that got my attention is the possibility to assign (thanks to the Roccat Swarm driver configurator) to the button close to Mouse 1 an automatic double-click function. Now, I've heard that some tools that make this kind of things are possibly illegal to use in multiplayer games, but I haven't find any good enough information about this for WoWs. So I'd like to know if this is possible to do (hence it's coming from the setup program of the mouse and not from a third party program) or if it's better to keep the mouse without special configurations and just with its stock commands to never risk anything. Thanks for any clarification o7 (not very used to the forum so if this is in the wrong section I'm sorry, will find the right place next time :D)
  20. Hallo World of Warships-Team. Mit den letzten Updates und veröffentlichten Premiumschiffen (insbesondere Yudachi, Ark Royal) kam mir vermehrt ein Wunsch und Gedanke. Ich wünsche mir, ab und zu neue Premiumschiffe für einen kurzen Zeitraum oder eine begrenzte Anzahl Gefechte testen zu können. So ähnlich wie in World of Tanks. Das Freischalten könnte entweder über einen Testcode oder über einen einfachen Auftrag im Spiel stattfinden. So hätte man die Möglichkeit einige Premiumschiffe unter "realen" Bedingungen, also auf dem Live-Server zu testen (und nicht nur auf dem Testserver - wenn überhaupt) und dann besser zu entscheiden, ob man sich das eine oder andere vielleicht kauft. Ich hoffe, dass sich das Spiel weiterhin so gut entwickelt wie bisher. Mit freundlichen Grüßen pk_e11
  21. The_British_Empir3


    The amount of time my game crashes is absurd. Most matches, sometimes twice a match, usually once or twice at the home screen. The game itself runs very smoothly, there are no noticeable problems with delivery or game play, it just crashes all the time. This problem only started to occur in June, prior to that (bare in mind I've been playing this for years) the game had never crashed once on me. I've downloaded the WG check, set that to repair any files, absolutely no difference whatsoever. I've changed all the settings to their lowest quality, absolutely no difference either.
  22. piritskenyer

    Riddle me this

    Hey guys, I have a thing that irks me greatly. Namely being T9 cruiser gameplay in general and my gameplay in tgem in particular. Here's the issue: T9 in any cruiser line for me is a stinker. It seems like no matter what I do I cannot get a win to save my life and I cannit figure out just what I'm doing wrong. Feel free to look at my stats (I would make screenshots, but I'm typing on the phone), you'll see that in any other tier I do decently, but on T9 my WR is in the red. I cannot figure out why. Is the ships? Am I doing something wrong? I had more than one heartbreakers in T9 cruisers (my overall damage record in a losing game in Ibuki and recently a game in Saint Louis in which I pushed and killed two TX's and killed two other T9's), but it seems that no matter how I do I cannot get a win. Even in the more utilitarian cruisers like Old Baltimore and Buffalo I can't (couldn't) win, even when obliterating literally all the DD's the enemy team had. Halp.
  23. Herman_German

    Punkte - GEwinne

    Moin, Moin: Im Moment gibt es für gewonnene Gefechte, versenkte Schiffe, etc. Punkte gut geschrieben. Was gibt es dafür, wo kann man dazu was erfahren? MfG
  24. Bon, moi je ne l'ai pas, mais j'ai toujours en tête les discussions sur ce navire qualifié d'OP avant son arrivée en jeu. Et, comme j'ai entendu certains avis plutôt différents depuis la fin des classées, de la part d'utilisateurs de l'engin, ma curiosité me pousse à proposer à ceux qui l'ont et le jouent maintenant de donner leur avis. Donc, comme je ne l'ai pas, je ne voterai évidemment pas
  25. Detonation It was gone for a while (turned of even i think), but I noticed (the hard way) that it's back. However, it is still broken: - I think I detonate to often (a WG trick to get you to buy the detonation flag?) - I detonate taking a torpedo on my BB's torpedo belt. That belt is made to catch the torpedo, how in the hell can I detonate? I purposely turn so it hits my BB's belt... As I recall, torpedoes explode outside the ship, the massive pressure creates an opening. Modern torpedoes create such a void under the ship it might even break. But the WW2 ones did not have that power. So technically speaking, I don't think your ship can't even detonate because of a torpedo. So: - To my knowledge, it's not correct to detonate because of a torpedo. - If you take a torpedo on your belt, you should certainly NOT detonate - I think I detonate to often (3 times in the last 7 days, yes I play a lot) I think they should turn it off again cause it is not working as it should.... what do you guys think?