Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'premium'.

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
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • 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
    • Outdated Mods
    • Archive
  • Developers' Section
    • Questions and Answers
  • Historical Section


  • Community Calendar
  • Deutschsprachige Community
  • Polska Społeczność
  • Communauté francophone
  • Česká a slovenská komunita
  • Comunidad de habla española
  • Türkçe Topluluk

Found 328 results

  1. HMS Rodney

    Just wanted to throw the question out there about potential addition of HMS Rodney and who would be interested/ does WG have any current plans for this? I feel that it would be great if we could have Rodney with it's historical forward launching torpedoes, scout aircraft, heavy AA armament and perhaps the Warspite style gun system with good AP but poorer HE performance. I reckon this could also be moved to T8 and have more HP, better armour and a smaller citadel in exchange for loss of the Nelson heal. What does everyone else think?
  2. Musashi isn't balance

    Goodmorning, what do you think about the musachi? I think is too stronk tier 9 bb, i have the izumo and i can't do anything for counter that ship
  3. Da Steam Versioni del Capitano con 6 punti, con spazio porto e la Anshan anche 1500 dobloni. Ne ho preso 2, la Graf Spee l'avevo già. https://steamcommunity.com/games/552990/announcements/detail/3786843201285697333 3 DLC sono ora disponibili! 10 maggio - WoWS
  4. Detailed proposal for a T8 HMS Vanguard

    'lo all. This is my first time on the forums, but as a regular WoWS player, I'm one of the many who would like to see HMS Vanguard introduced into the game. I know this discussion has been recycled, a lot, but I haven't seen any really detailed threads. Maybe there are and I've just missed them! People want Vanguard. The problem is balancing it. She was the last and most modern battleship, ever built, so she has to be of a relatively high tier. The game already has four Tier 7 Royal Navy "battleships" (air quotes for Hood), so T7 is oversaturated. Her 8x 15" guns sound fine on T6, but there's no way Vanguard should be down in T6, she's way too modern and was the successor to the T7 KGV class! So... T8 is the best fit, but balancing an eight-gunned 15" battleship at Tier 8, save from turning her into a Bismarck clone, would be challenging. I've been thinking on this and have a few ideas. I would like to hear what other people have to say and give their input. What is needed, I believe, is to make the under-gunned Vanguard feel modern. I'm not talking about skipping around at high speed, avoiding any kind of detection, twirling around her clunky opponents, all while laughing and flicking the two-fingered salute... no, I'm talking about a ship that feels unique and enjoyable to play, offers a little something different, is free from any game-breaking buffs and is strong and competitve, without ruining the enjoyment for the opposing team. I believe this ship can be made viable, while maintaining historical accuracy (which is something that matters to me), with every characteristic being based off of real world stats (as much as possible, at least!). I'll be quoting a lot from Wikipedia. ARMAMENT -Primary Battery Eight (4x twin) BL 15" Mk1 guns. Same as Warspite & Hood. This is the first hurdle: Warspite is to be feared in T6 matches and respected when fighting T8's. However, as a T8, Vanguard will have to face T10's... with eight 15" guns (!!). Big problem. What usually happens, in this scenario, is the ship is given an artificially-increased reload speed, to compensate for smaller guns, or lack of, or both (25s for Monarch, 26s for Bismarck & Tirpitz, 28s for Gascogne). It would be easy to slap a 25s reload on Vanguard and hope... but, please, don't!! Stick with the historically accurate 30s! A rate of fire buff is not required, to make this ship competitive. No, seriously, hear me out... The guns are small, for a Tier 8, yes. They are few, for a Tier 8, yes. They don't have a special reload, yes. So her shells don't do a lot of individual damage, she has a relatively small broadside and she doesn't fire that quickly. However... The guns in Vanguard were modernised, to the Mk I(N) RP12 design (more range). She could also utilise supercharges, increasing muzzle velocity, penetration and range. My idea would be to implement Vanguard into the game, so that her main guns are always using supercharges. If implemented properly, this would make Vanguard's guns competitive, despite the reduced number, smaller size and standard reload. An added benefit, is the people at WG could make the firing animation and sound of Vanguard's guns SPECTACULAR, owing to the supercharges! Imagine... a huge, thundering crack, an enormous muzzle-flash and an almighty spit of flame! She would have a badass reputation, from that, alone! Stats are as follows: Firing range- 30.68km (34.63km with supercharges). Now, obviously WoWs doesn't deal with actual ranges, more effective ranges (Warspite hit Giulio Cesare at 24.1km, but her in-game range is only 16.3km, for example), but it would be reasonable to give Vanguard an in-game range of around 20km, give-or-take. Muzzle Velocity- 749m/s (nothing confirmed for supercharges). This isn't enough. Luckily, if we follow the "Vanguard with supercharges" logic, we can boost that. I've seen quoted figues of over 850m/s, but let's say, for the sake of gameplay/balance, that Vanguard's guns have a velocity of around 920m/s. Let's also say, for the sake of balance, that her shells maintain good momentum, with low drag and good arcs (the shells fired are more modern than those of Warspite/Hood). This would give her 15" shells strong punching power. So another string to her bow would be increased penetration and normilisation angles. Krupp value would need to be increased, to make this work properly. "Ahh, but Roma has 15" guns and very good penetration, but suffers from over-pens on cruisers and bounces on battleships"... yes, but carrying-on the WoWs tradition that most British ships have fast-arming fuses on their AP shells, we give Vanguard the same 0.01s fuse times as the rest of the Royal Navy fleet (or similar, anyway). The fast fuses will ensure consistant penetrations -with less over-penetrations-, on cruisers... whereas the fast shells, with good normalisation angles would allow the shells to penetrate Battleship armour, before exploding, ensuring consistant penetrations and less bounces. This would mean that Vanguard would not be a long-range HE spammer and could reliably fire AP at battleships, at medium and long ranges. Obviously, they are still only 15" shells, so proper battleship & heavy cruiser angling & bow-tanking would defeat them, requiring a switch to HE. Proposed AP stats: Around 12k, extremely fast, enhanced normalisation, short fuse. Proposed HE stats: The same as Monarch would be fine. Vanguard has 1 less gun (broadside) and 2 less guns (bow-on), with less DPM, so she wouldn't be the devil fire-starter that opponents hate! Now, this is important: These guns have to be accurate. No, not accurate, but ACCURATE. I would propose WG make Vanguard the most accurate battleship in the game, with brilliant (for a battleship, we're not talking cruiser, here) horizontal & vertical dispersion and a sigma rating of 2.1. Yes, 2.1. Bearing in mind, this is not only an under-gunned battleship, but also THE MOST MODERN battleship, in the world, with extrordinarily advanced fire control systems: "Vanguard was unique among British battleships in having remote power control (RPC) for her main, secondary and tertiary guns along with the Admiralty Fire Control Table Mk X for surface fire control of the main armament. There were two director control towers (DCT) for the 15-inch guns, each carrying a "double cheese" Type 274 fire-control radar for range finding and spotting the fall of shot." " When the 15-inch gun turrets were modernised, their existing 15-foot (4.6 m) rangefinders were replaced by 30-foot (9.1 m) ones in all turrets except for 'A' and they were fitted for RPC in azimuth only. The turrets were also provided with de-humidifying equipment and insulation to improve their habitability." There is arguement here, to make Vanguard so accurate. Both with historical facts and gameplay balance in-mind. She can't throw as many -nor the biggest- shells down-range, so she needs to make each attack count. She could also be blessed with comfortable gunnery; fast (ish) rotating turrets, which would lend themselves to the more modern feel. Wherever you aim, these shells go! -In short, Vanguard's guns would provide less damage output per-shot, a weaker broadside, an ordinary reload and poor DPM... compared with those of almost all her rivals. But she would compensate, by having hard-hitting, deep-biting, reliable AP penetration and strong, dependable HE shells, both with high projectile speed, good arcs, shorter lead-times and monster accuracy. -Secondary Battery "The secondary armament consisted of sixteen 50-calibre QF 5.25-inch Mk I* dual-purpose guns in eight twin gun mounts. They had a maximum depression of −5° and a maximum elevation of 70°. They fired an 80-pound (36.3 kg) high-explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,672 ft/s (814 m/s). The improved 5.25 turrets on Vanguard were claimed to be fully automatic, with a power-rammed breech and automatic tracking and elevation under radar control enabling a rate of fire of about 18 rounds per minute." OK, so 16 (8x twin) 5.25" rapid-firing secondaries. Not particularly impressive. Good for lightning fires, maybe. Give it a range of around 5km, give-or-take? The automatic tracking and elevation under radar control is interesting, make these the most accurate (if, somewhat weak) secondaries in the game. Dual purpose, also good for AA. Nice and modern! -AA "Short-range air defence was provided by 73 Bofors 40 mm AA guns in a variety of mountings. Vanguard had ten sextuple-barrel power-operated mounts concentrated in the superstructure and stern, a twin-barrel mount on 'B' turret, and 11 power-operated single mounts on the upper deck and rear superstructure. All mounts could depress to −10° and elevate to a maximum of +90°. The 40-millimetre (1.6 in) gun fired a 1.97-pound (0.89 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,890 ft/s (880 m/s) to a distance of 10,750 yards (9,830 m). The gun's rate of fire was approximately 120 rounds per minute." Pretty monstrous! In addition to the dual purpose secondaries, you have 10x sextuple (that's 60), 1x twin, 11x single 40mm Bofors AA guns! The AA rating on this thing should be pretty high and be very, very good for short-ranged defence. Not so much use for supporting teammates, however. SPEED AND MANEUVERABILITY She has the speed. She was designed to have 130,000shp and reach 30kn, but during trials, she achieved over 136,000shp and reached 31.57kn. In-game, I think the 136,000shp should be quoted, with a speed of 31.5kn. That's fair and would make her a very speedy (but not overly-so) battleship, able to respond to threats and push forward, into position... be the VANGUARD, so to speak! As for maneuverability... well, she's a large vessel (248.2m, or 814ft 4 inch). Almost 50 feet longer than KGV! So this would translate to a large turning circle. KGV's turning circle is 790m, so Vanguard's would have to realistically be nearer 810m, or something. However, due to complaints of the KGV class having poor seaworthiness: "The King George V-class ships had been built with almost no sheer to the main deck forwards to allow 'A' turret to fire straight forward at zero elevation, resulting in a poor sea boat that took a lot of water over the bow. Vanguard was redesigned as a result of this experience, significant sheer and flare being added to the bow. The ship was well regarded as seaworthy, able to keep an even keel in rough seas." This could realistically translate to a ship with a relatively quick rudder-shift time, that answers her rudder quickly (OK, the above has nothing to do with rudder, but we have little to play with, when talking about HANDLING in-game) and maintain good speed in a turn. Again, this will feel MODERN. ARMOUR AND HEALTH As you can see from the above photo, Vanguard is very similar to KGV. In-fact, the armour scheme was based on that of KGV. In-game, that could translate to having almost identical armour and health as Monarch, only slightly better. As wikipedia shall explain: "The ship's armour scheme was based on that of the King George V class with a thinner waterline belt and additional splinter protection. Originally the belt armour was equal to that of the older ships, but it had to be reduced to offset weight increases when the design was modified to reflect wartime experience. The waterline 460-foot (140.2 m) main belt was composed of Krupp cemented armour (KCA) 13 inches (330 mm) thick, but increased to 14 inches (356 mm) abreast the magazines. It was 24 feet (7.3 m) high and tapered to a thickness of 4.5 inches (114 mm) at the bottom edge of the belt. Fore and aft of the 12-inch (305 mm) transverse bulkheads that closed off the central citadel, the belt continued almost to the ends of the ship. Forward it tapered to a thickness of 2 inches (51 mm) and a height of 8 feet (2.4 m) and aft to the same thickness, but a height of 11 feet (3.4 m). At the aft end of the steering gear compartment was a 4-inch (102 mm) transverse bulkhead. After the Battle of the Denmark Strait in 1941, 1.5-inch (38 mm) non-cemented armour bulkheads were added on the sides of the magazines, to protect them from splinters from any hits from plunging shells that might have penetrated the ship's side beneath her belt. When the gun turrets from the First World War-era battlecruisers were modernised, their KCA faceplates were replaced by new ones 13 inches thick, and their roofs were replaced by 6-inch (152 mm) non-cemented armour plates. Their sides remained 7–9 inches (180–230 mm) in thickness. The barbettes for the 15-inch guns were 13 inches thick on the sides, but tapered to 11–12 inches (279–305 mm) closer to the centreline of the ship. The side and roof armour of the 5.25-inch turrets was 2.5 inches (64 mm) thick. Their ammunition hoists were protected by armour 2–6 inches (51–152 mm) thick. Intended to resist the impact of a 1,000-pound (450 kg) armour-piercing bomb dropped from a height of 14,000 feet (4,300 m), Vanguard's deck protection was identical to that of the King George V class. It consisted of six-inch non-cemented armour over the magazines that reduced to 5 inches (127 mm) over the machinery spaces. The armour continued forward and aft of the citadel at the lower-deck level. Forward it tapered in steps from five inches down to 2.5 inches near the bow. Aft, it protected the steering gear and propeller shafts with 4.5 inches of armour before tapering to a thickness of 2.5 inches near the stern. Unlike the Germans, French and Americans, the British no longer believed that heavy armour for the conning tower served any real purpose given that the chance of hitting it was very small; Vanguard's conning tower was therefore protected with 3 inches (76 mm) of armour on the face and 2.5 inches on the sides and rear. The secondary conning tower aft had 2 inches (51 mm) of armour on its sides. Vanguard's underwater protection was enhanced when she was redesigned in 1942 to reflect the lessons learned when Prince of Wales was sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers. It still consisted of a three-layer system of voids and liquid-filled compartments meant to absorb the energy of an underwater explosion. It was bounded on the inside by the 1.75–1.5-inch (44–38 mm) torpedo bulkhead. Her enlarged oil tanks reduced the empty spaces that could flood and cause the ship to list and greater provision was made to pump these spaces out. The longitudinal bulkheads of the side protection system were raised one deck higher to further subdivide the spaces behind the waterline armour belt. The side protection system had a maximum depth of 15 feet (4.6 m), but this decreased significantly as the ship narrowed at its ends. Over the length of the citadel, this system was found to be proof against 1,000 pounds (450 kg) of TNT during full-scale trials." So, a slightly reduced armour belt is the only are that Vanguard would lack, compared to KGV & Monarch. Her increased splinter-protection could translate to extra protection against HE shells and she also has seriously good torpedo protection. More on that: "Vanguard's design was revised again, while the ship was under construction in 1942, to reflect lessons learned from the loss of the King George V-class battleship Prince of Wales and operations with the other battleships. The space between the inboard and outboard propeller shafts was increased from 33.5 to 51.5 feet (10.2 to 15.7 m) to prevent a single torpedo from wrecking both shafts, and watertight access trunks were added to all spaces below the deep waterline to prevent progressive flooding through open watertight doors and hatches as happened to Prince of Wales." This could be reflected in higher torpdedo-damage-reduction, than her contemporaries, which would help, given her large turning circle. It would also make sense if she suffered flooding for a shorter period of time. As the "crew" on your WoWS battleship sealed the various compartments, this shorter flooding time would reflect the thought and design that went into the ship. She also had a double-bottom arrangement (two "skins") and was "divided into 27 main compartments, with water-tight bulkheads". Overall, her armour would be tougher than Monarch, with better torpedo defence and increased damage recovery. She would also have more health. However, she might be slightly more susceptible to citadel damage. CONCEALMENT AND STEALTH OK, she's a big, long, wide ship. However, she does have quite a sleek side-profile/silhouette and looks quite sleek, overall. See below: I would be tempted to reflect this with pretty good surface detectibility. Not Monarch, nor Roma stealth, but better than average. Overall, pretty sneaky, but won't surprise any cruisers. I would also reflect the enormous length and width with pretty average-to-poor air detectibility. Planes will see this thing from above, it's not a Yamato or Grosser Kurfurst, but it's no light cruiser! EXTRAS Now, if... BIG IF... she still wasn't quite up to snuff, there is one other thing I thought of... I don't believe it is necessary, but I'd like to know what people think: Now, obviously, almost all WW2 battleships had radar... WAIT! WAIT! LET ME FINISH!... and Vanguard's would be the best of them... I SAID LET ME FINISH!!... The thing is, I am not a fan of radar in WoWS, certainly not on a battleship (or Belfast) and I know most people feel the same. However, this super modern battleship, last of its kind, does feel a bit blind, with no spotter plane and no hydro. Add hydro, if you want, standard hydro isn't that powerful on a battleship. What if they gave Vanguard a completely unique form of radar, where it is a pulse, or a PING... extremely long ranged, the entire map, even... but it only highlighted every enemy ship for 1 second?? Like the radar gadget thing on Aliens Vs Predator! Or like a real sonar pulse. PING!... every enemy ship is spotted for one second... and they're gone again. This would not allow anyone to fire upon the enemy, there is just no time, but it would allow the fleet to know roughly where the enemies are (I say "roughly", as there's no way the enemy ships would maintain position). It would only have maybe 3 charges and would CERTAINLY not break the game! No-one would get shot, as a result... but it would give a brief glimpse into the enemy's plans. I can see this being quite uselful in clan battles, but not a deciding factor. Basically, that's my idea on Vanguard, it's taken me a LOOOONG time to type this up, but I am keen to know what others think. Thanks for reading (those who have). I'll leave a brief summary: VANGUARD Tier 8 Pros: -Fast battleship -Good armour scheme with additional torpedo & flooding protection -Good AA protection -Comfortable gun handling -Maintains speed in a turn -EXTREMELY accurate guns (for a battleship), with supercharges -Very fast shells, with short lead-times and good arcs -Very good AP penetration, with enhanced normalisation & krupp rating -Good, dependable HE shells, with good damage and fire chance -Pretty good concealment from sea -(possible unique radar pulse) Cons: -Small guns for tier, no overmatch -Normal reload and only 8 guns; gives poor DPM -Lower damage per AP shell, than most rivals -Smaller broadside than most rivals -Pretty lacklustre secondary armament -Large turning circle -Pretty poor concealment from air -No spotter plane Overall, I think this would be a fine ship. Dependable, fun to play, does a good job at maintaining historical accuracy, but still allows for game balance. I think the modern "flavour" would shine through, giving an entirely unique -but still quintessentially Battleship- form of gameplay. It would also NOT ruin the fun for the enemy team, nor would it be any better than the non-premium tech tree ships, which I think is extremely important. Thanks, everyone.
  5. With the upcoming Stalingrad and especially relevant Kronshtadt I want to revisit Alaska and later some other Super crusiers/Large Cruisers/Cruiser killers/battlecruisers that are applicable to this new archtype WG is coming with. Previously it has been very unclear whether Alaska would be a BB, a CA or given special treatment. As Kronshtadt would indicate, these ships will get special treatment as a hybrid between the BB and Cruiser in gameplay terms. Getting a little and losing a little compared to both standard ship types. Hull, Survivability and Armor Main armament Secondary and anti aircraft armaments Maneuverability Concealment Some notes, I opted to give Alaska the USN BB damage control party, as I think it would help differentiate Alaska from the tech tree cruisers, but also from the other Large Cruisers of this ship archtype. The stats are a mix of historical data, gameplay data from existing ships and compromises between US CAs and BBs mostly Baltimore and Iowa as they are the closest ingame contemporaries from the same nation and what authors usually use to compare Alaska in litterature. All stats are double checked and compared to Kronshtadt for balance. In this state I think Alaska strikes a good balance between heavy cruiser and battleship, is balanced vs. its current ingame rival Kronshtadt and most importantly has a lot of national flavour from USN tech trees.
  6. In diesem Topic möchte ich euch gerne den leichten Flugzeugträger Ibuki vorstellen, ursprünglich ein Kreuzer der Kaiserlichen Japanischen Marine. Wie viele wissen ist die Ibuki als Kreuzer bereits im Spiel implementiert. Jedoch möchte ich mit euch auch darüber sprechen ob es möglich wäre, die Ibuki als Flugzeugträger ins Spiel zu übernhemen. Eventuell ein equivalent (wenn man so möchte) zur Amerikanischen Saipan. Allgemeines: ︿ Die Ibuki, welche in "Rapid Naval Armaments Supplement" Programme der Kaiserlichen Japanischen Marine integriert war wurde 1941 als Schwerer Kreuzer in Auftrag gegeben. Am 24 April 1942 wurde die Ibuki in der Schiffswerft "Kure Naval Arsenal" niedergelegt. Jedoch wurde ihr Bau am 30.Juni eingestellt. Einen Monat später wurden die Arbeiten wieder aufgenommen und sie wurde am 5. April 1943 bei der Namensgebungskonferenz nach dem Berg Ibuki benannt. Die Marine erwog, sie am 25. August in einen leichten Flugzeugträger umzuwandeln. Während die Pläne für die Bekehrung vorbereitet wurden, wurde sie vom U-Boot-Begleitschiff Jingei vom 19.-21. Dezember zum "Sasebo Naval Arsenal" in Sasebo geschleppt. Die Fertigstellung des Schiffes war ursprünglich für März 1945 geplant, wurde aber aufgrund von Verspätungen für August verschoben. Die Arbeit wurde bis zum 16. März 1945 fortgesetzt, aber sie wurde eingestellt, als sie zu 80% fertig war, um sich auf den Bau kleiner U-Boote zu konzentrieren, die benötigt wurden, um Japan gegen eine amerikanische Invasion zu verteidigen. Sie war in der Ebisu Bay in der Nähe von Sasebo verankert und ergab sich dort am 2. September zusammen mit dem Rest des japanischen Militärs. Die Ibuki wurde im Zeitraum von 22. November 1946 - 1. August 1947 in Sasebo verschrottet. ﹀ Konstruktion / Panzerung / Bewaffnung: ︿ Wie ursprünglich geplant hat das Schiff eine Länge von 200.6 m, eine Schiffsbreite von 20.2 m und einen Tiefgang von 6.04 m. Die Ibuki verdrängte 12.220 Tonnen bei Standardlast und 14.828 Tonnen bei Voll last. Sie war mit vier Kampon-Getriebe-Dampfturbosätzen mit insgesamt 152.000 Pferdestärken (113.000 kW) ausgerüstet, die jeweils einen 3,9 Meter langen Propeller antrieben. Dampf wurde von acht dreirädrigen Wasserrohrkesseln vom Kampon Ro Gō-Typ geliefert, die dem Schiff eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit von 35 Knoten (65 km) geben sollten. Ibuki trug 2.163 Tonnen Heizöl, was ihr eine geschätzte Reichweite von 6.300 nautischen Meilen (11.700 km) bei 18 Knoten (33 km) bescherte. Der Panzergürtel über der Wasserlinie des Schiffes erstreckte sich von den vorderen bis zu den hinteren Magazinen unter den vorderen und hinteren Türmen. Über den Maschinenräumen war es an den Seiten der Magazine 100 mm und 140 mm. Die äußeren Enden der vorderen und hinteren Maschinenräume waren durch eine 105 mm großen Querwand geschützt. Die Magazine wurden durch vordere und hintere Querschotte geschützt, die 95-140 mm waren. Die Dicke des Panzerdecks reichte von 35-40 mm auf der flachen und 60 mm. Die Seiten des Turms waren 100 mm, während das Dach 50 mm war. Die Hauptgeschütztürme hatten an allen Seiten und auf dem Dach eine Panzerbreite von 25 mm. Die geplante Hauptbewaffnung der Ibuki-Klasse sollte zehn 50-Kaliber-20-cm-Geschütze des 3.Typs Nr. 2 sein, die in zwei Geschütztürmen montiert waren, drei vorwärts und zwei achtern. Die Geschütze konnten auf -5 ° abfallen und hatten eine maximale Höhe von + 55 ° und eine maximale Reichweite von 29.900 m, desweiteren bestand die Sekundärbewaffnung aus acht Kaliber 12,7 cm Typ 89. Flugabwehrkanonen in Zwillingslagern bestehen. Sie hatten eine maximale Reichweite von 14.800 m und eine maximale Obergrenze von 9.400 m. Die Ibuki sollte auch mit vier Zwillings-25-mm-Typ-96-leichten Flugabwehr-Geschützen ausgerüstet sein. Sie hatten eine maximale Reichweite von 7.500 m und eine effektive Obergrenze von 5.500 m. Die maximale effektive Feuerrate lag nur zwischen 110 und 120 Schuss pro Minute aufgrund der häufigen Notwendigkeit, die 15-Runden-Magazine zu wechseln. Zwei Zwillings 13,2 mm Typ 93 Maschinengewehr sollten mit 2.000 Schuss pro Geschütz auf der Brücke montiert werden. Desweiteren mit vier rotierenden, 4 x 61 cm großen Torpedorohren vom Typ 92 ausgerüstet sein, zwei an jeder Breitseite. Das Schiff trug 24 Torpedos vom Typ 93, 16 in den Röhren und acht in Reserve. Schnellladeausrüstung wurde für jede Halterung installiert, die es erlaubte, die Reservetorpedos in drei bis fünf Minuten unter idealen Bedingungen zu laden. Eine Frühwarnung wäre von einem Luftsuchradar vom Typ 2, Mark 2, Modell 1, das oben auf dem Vormast montiert ist, ein passives Hydrophon-System vom Typ 93 wäre im Bug angebracht worden. Die Ibuki wurde so konzipiert, um drei Flugzeuge auf einer Plattform tragen. Diese hätten aus einem dreisitzigen Aichi E13A und zwei zweisitzigen Yokosuka E14Y-Wasserflugzeugen bestanden. Sie wären durch ein Paar Flugzeugkatapulte gestartet worden, eines auf jeder Seite der Flugzeugplattform. ﹀ Umbau: ︿ Die zwei hintere Turbosätze, die vier Achterkessel und die beiden innersten Propellerwellen wurden mit ihren Propellern entfernt. Die Abgasleitungen für die übrigen Kessel wurden auf der Steuerbordseite des Rumpfes zu einem nach unten gekrümmten Trichter zusammengefasst. Der zur Verfügung gestellte Raum wurde für zusätzliche Treibstofftanks sowie Bomben- und Torpedomagazine mit einer Kapazität von 24 Bomben und zwei Torpedos verwendet. Das Schiff konnte jetzt 3.060 Tonnen Öl transportieren, genug für 7.900 Meilen bei einer Geschwindigkeit von 18 Knoten (33 km). Die reduzierte Leistung bedeutete, dass Ibukis Höchstgeschwindigkeit nur 29 Knoten betrug (54 km). Im Zuge des Umbaus wurde der vorhandene Überbau demontiert, ein neues Hangardeck wurde oberhalb des bestehenden Oberdecks errichtet und ein 205 m langes Flugdeck in voller Länge hinzugefügt. Das Schiff wurde ausgebeult, um ihre Stabilität zu verbessern, was ihren Strahl auf maximal 21,2 Meter unterhalb der Wasserlinie erhöhte. Die verdrängung des Schiffes erhöhte sich auf 14.800 Tonnen und das zusätzliche Gewicht erhöhte ihren Tiefgang auf 6,31 m. Zu Beginn sollte das Schiff eine sehr leichte Bewaffnung von nur 22 Dreifach-25-Millimeter-Geschützbefestigungen haben, die von acht Typ-95-Feuerleitanlagen kontrolliert wurden, aber diese wurde 1944 modifiziert, um vier 60-Kaliber-8-cm-Typ 98 Dual-Zweck Geschütze zu ersetzten, die in zwei Zwillingsgeschütztürmen montiert sind, und vier 28-Rohr-Trägerraketen für 12 Zentimeter Flugabwehrraketen. Dies gab dem Schiff insgesamt 48 25-mm-Kanonen in 16 Dreifach-Halterungen. An der Spitze der Insel sollte Ibuki einen 2-Meter-Entfernungsmesser und einen Typ-21-Radar haben. Im Jahr 1944 wurde das Radar vom Typ 21 zu einer einziehbaren Halterung im Flugdeck in der Nähe des Bugs gebracht, ein Suchradar vom Typ 13 sollte auf der Insel installiert werden. ﹀ Flugzeuge: Die Luftgruppe des Schiffes bestand aus 27 Flugzeugen: Mitsubishi A7M Reppū Aichi B7A Ryusei Tauch- / Torpedobombern.
  7. Où qu’il est le Massachausette ?

    Oï ! On avait entendu parlé d’un cuirassé ressemblant à l’Alabama, le Massachusetts, il y a bientôt un an. Du coup... Où qu’il est passé le Massachausette ? On a plus eu de nouvelles pendant un bon bout de temps quand même.
  8. Why the Asashio is fine (to WG).

    The Asashio is perfectly balanced, and ready to release as is or with minimal adjustments, this I have concluded as counterargument to the naysayers. If it is OP all WG need to say is “we made a mistake” and pull it from sales. But not before players rush to grab themselves an OP toy. And a none-OP ship will never sell, no? And if it is not OP it is lauded as an “everyman’s ship”. WG is praised, it becomes a staple seller, and WG gains profits anyways. And no ship WG releases will ever be too OP that a pull-from-sale is insufficient to address. Think the old breed premiums and a few singular new premiums which were ... bit too purposefully designed to be “considerate” to the player/buyer. That is because they will always have the following traits: 1. A slight but obvious flaw or downside is designed right within their primary armament. A “tradeoff”. But otherwise performs “marvellously” against the “intended targets”. And no idiot will be trying to use it against “unintended targets” right. 2. Their primary armament will only cause significant stress for a minority portion of players at a time. And at least one portion of the population will be a direct counter to this ship. (OP CVs will only cause stress to other CVs. OP DDs will be hunted by other specific ships or the meta in general and OP CAs will always eat a citadel or two.) This means that at any given time the amount of players crying to WG will only be a minority, and thus unable to generate great disorder on forums or anywhere else. And their situations will also be a minority experience thus unlikely to garner much support. Especially CVs. 3. Its strengths may be spread out between polar scenarios and situations, but still OP in each. This is to prevent the statistics reflecting on how OP they are. (A ship may have great AA but it’s other strengths will be something far detached from AA. A ship strong against cruisers will be strong in another place as well but these additional strengths are unlikely reflective or active at the same time as the same situation it is in vs cruisers.) 4. Possibility of a common “critical failure” situation must exist for that ship, either via hard design or in “noob trap” scenarios where inexperienced players will choose an option or build for that ship which is inefficient and astoundingly failure. In this way WG can claim that the ship “is balanced and not OP”. Experienced players however will have no trouble using the ship to sealclub efficiently. In short the stats and examples of the inexperienced players becomes a publicity smokescreen for the real purposes of that ship. 5. Another premium ship in a completely new direction and different type will be envisioned and released to high publicity after the previous premium direction is “saturated” or at “high-publicity risk”. Via rotating between methods and redirecting players’ attention, based on careful analysis of prior situational feedback, WG is able to sustain a cycle of success. A purposefully “weak” or “show” premium is released every now and then to add variety and break the pattern of these cycles, and high-profile, historically esteemed ships are usually dealt with more cautiously and deliberately. 6. The premium ships are “MM” safe meaning they will be viable both undertier and as top tier. This is a highly attractive trait because it takes out a major stressor in the game. It is also part of the tactic of “far apart” OPness. Combined with economy and Captain training, this ensures players are psychologically soothed when using the ship to game. This trait is viable because of WGs philosophy of introducing purposeful stressors into their games, even to the point of purposefully “crippling” silver ships (with exception of T10s which will never have to face a direct premium competitor as WG does not release T10 premiums). In short, premiums are the ideal and obvious solution (too obvious) to the chaotic and toxic problem which is the game itself. 7. Good players cannot recognize or be sensitive to quite a lot of these traits since they are good and will perform and enjoy the game even through a lot of the negatives. They provide a kind of false advertisement and debased goodwill/positiveness on the purpose of premiums. To the point that we think “premiums are gimmicky, quirky situational ships that require skill to play well.” Amongst other understanding things. In short it is unwitting propaganda. But as I have made points of already, the purpose of premiums is not some scholarly venture at new possibilities and creativity in this game, but rather a highly controlled and engineered conundrum leveraged on players to elicit specific conformity and reaction. Premiums will always be OP and preferable, but not obviously. Just like the game will always be F2P but many other things as well. Now I must prepare for my trip to the Gulag. (But not before I give penance to all the seals I have clubbed with premiums.) Been nice knowing you all.
  9. Eventually Vanguard would make its appearence in World of warships, Hopefully in the tier 8 or even 9 bracket. What would you like to be the ships features and characteristics? I hope for a design that emphasizes on AP rather than HE, deadly accurate guns, nice handling, good penetration values. Since it was the world last battleship to be completed, it should reflect qualities that made the ship better than its predecessors. Although it has only 8 15" guns similar to Warspite, Hood and many other RN battleships, it could make use of the supercharge propellant and better fire control direction. What do you think?
  10. In diesem Thema bringe ich euch die USS Gambier Bay näher, ein US Flugzeugträger des 2WK, die Gambier Bay war ein Eskortflugzeugträger der Klasse "Casablanca". Diese Klasse der Flugzeugträger zählt zur anzhal stärksten gebauten Flugzeugträger-Klasse aller Zeiten. Allgemeines: Entworfen wurde die "Casablanca-Klasse" ehemalig als Begleitschiffe für Nordatlantikkonvois wurde jedoch im 2WK auf allen Schauplätzen eingesetzt. Die Gambier Bay war ein Geleitflugzeugträger und gehört zur Klasse der "Casablanca-Klasse" diese Schiffs Klasse umfasste 50 weitere Schiffe und zählt somit zur Zahlen mäßigen stärksten Flugzeugträger-Klasse die jemals gebaut wurde. Die Bauzeit der Klasse war in denn Jahren 1943 - 44 die Gambier Bay selbst hatte am 10. Juli 1943 Ihre Kiellegung und Ihren Stapellauf am 22 November 1943 knapp ein Monat danach im Dezember 1943 hatte sie Ihre Indienststellung. Das Schiff wurde vom Hafenpersonal als "Bonusschiff" bezeichnet das sie das 19. Schiff war das 1943 ausgeliefert wurde, ursprünglich hatte die Werft 16 Trägerschiffe bis Ende 1943 geplant jedoch durch die Kampagne mit der Bezeichnung "18 or More by' 44" wurde zusätzliches Personal mobilisiert um 19 Schiffe zu produzieren bis Ende 1943 das von denn Kaiser-Werken ausging, die Gambier Bay war nicht nur das 19. sondern auch das letzte Schiff der Kaiser-Werke. Mögliche Implementierung in das Spiel: Da es sich um einen Geleitträger handelt ist es durchaus vorstellbar das die Gambier Bay ähnlich wie die bereits vorhandene Saipan, mit einem Kleinen Setup ausgestattet werden kann in diesem falle jedoch auch schlagkräftig um Air Support zu gewehrleisten, jedoch sollte darauf geachtet werden das Sie nicht wie die Saipan mit T9 Fliegern ausgerüstet wird wie es zurzeit ist, natürlich hat sie keinen großen Hanger und ist deshalb in denn Low Tier Bereich einzustufen. Allerdings kann man die Flieger 1 Stuffe höher stufen als das Schiff selbst es sollte möglichst ausgeglichen sein zu einem US oder IJN Flugzeugträger damit es kein Frust wird/ werden könnte wenn man sie spielt, ich ziehe hier gerne die Saipan heran die sie einen guten anfang für Geleitflugzeugträger macht, ich sage nicht die Saipan wäre gut so wie sie ist allerdings könnte man daraus lernen um ein Schiff wie die "Gambier Bay" besser in das Spiel zu bringen wie zb mit einem 2 | 2 | 2 Setup ein zubringen. Das Schiff selbst mit Ihren 28 Fliegern wäre im Bereich zwischen 5 und 6 einzuordnen dem entsprechend ist es möglich T7 oder T8 Flieger zu verwenden meine Planung wäre wie ähnlich der Saipan mit jeweils 3 Fliegern in einem Schwadron. Technische Daten: Schiffsmaße: Länge: 156,2 m (Lüa) Breite: 32,9 m Tiefgang: max.6,9 m Verdrängung: Standard: 7800 ts Maschinenanlage: Maschine: 4 Kolbendampfmaschinen, 9000 PS auf zwei Propeller Maschinenleistung: 20 knots (37 km/h) Propeller: 2 Bewaffung: (Achtung! mögliche InGame werte!) Flugabwehrartillerie: 1 × 5-inch/38 (55 ~ 60 DPS) 16 × 40 mm Bofors (8 × 2) (60 ~ 67 DPS) 20 × 20 mm Oerlikon (55 ~ 60 DPS)
  11. When can we lay our Hands on the T-61 ????

    It is ready. It is perfect. It should be the first german premium dd. My wallet is ready for that ship. RELEASE IT !!! NOW !!!
  12. Suggestion: Premium-centric gamemodes

    Edit: this is pretty much the TL;DR ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ About some time ago I briefly entertained the idea of premiums being more focused by WG, but in a way that benefits both their cashflow, and the playerbase. It was how special premium-centric gamemodes can be made possible thanks to the following attributes of premiums: 1. Reduced economy loss / always a win in economic terms, regardless of game performance/outcome, 2. Special quirks, can perform unique and specialized tasks well, 3. Usually has prestige factor, both from acquisition methods in-game, and their historical legacy, 4. Is "outside" the balance-scale of the usual tech tree, thus can be considered on a case-by-case basis. Thus special game modes created for premiums may uniquely leverage these attributes in interesting and fun ways otherwise difficult to achieve with tech-tree ships, to provide entertainment for the general playerbase. For instance, 1. This means premiums can be placed into the spotlight and also more pressuring, demanding, and less rewarding roles as needs of the scenario dictates. 2. This means premiums can be expected to perform a very specialized, demanding, but somehow achievable, roles as their ship-specs allow. 3. This can serve as justification and immersion factor for the special scenarios and attention to be given to the premiums, as the event dictates. (for instance if WG syncs the scenario events to historical dates on the real calendar) 4. The experimental endeavor of using ships in non-balanced MM game-modes on regularity, is a significant and symbolic attempt in itself, as it can serve as a stepping stone to provide precious experience, practice, statistics and data, and systemic development of more variety, fun, depth, and enhanced MM for WoWs as a whole. Leading to, for instance, optimizations, improvements on balance in the tech tree, on variety between lines, better progression, and general experience of players. But before we go into the details, the way these game-modes work is not some "special feature" serving only premium-ship owners. Rather, imagine the Corgi Fleet, but normal premium ship owners substituting out the WG sanctioned Corgi-players, and the premium ships involved will be rotated on a regular and seasonal event basis. The rewards will be less "outstanding", not as "loaded" as a hefty amount of doubloons by killing Corgis, but similar to the event rewards we get nowadays ... a few flags, containers, event camos, but still regular stuff. Maybe doubloons, but rare, so it will still be balanced. Or lotteries, server-wide progression based on the Kamikaze R, lots of ways to make it fun. Or, imagine the PvE scenarios, but as a PvP scenario where one side has to "roleplay" with premiums. Naturally, all kinds of premiums, from premium shop, doubloon-buyable, or prestige premiums, will have to be given equal representation, as well as between ship classes, tier level, and all that kind of consideration. In brief, the game modes provide regular features for premium owners to use their premiums in, and for the general populace to have fun going against the scenarios, with enough interesting ideas and reasonable rewards to make it enticing. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ The game modes' "specialty" compared to regular mode can be achieved at certain thresholds of detail ... be it just a straightforward reward for simply encountering the premium ship during the event, like Corgis and Halloween, to a bit more complex, such as unique game-wide modifiers, even altered game rules, or altered objectives / maps. Or to the full-out special event, a dedicated scenario created just for the occasion, imagine sci-fi space battles, or even a dedicated and scripted scenario map. The main ideas is that the "gamemode" will make use of the special attributes of premiums as listed in the 4 points above, to create a uniquely perspective encounter in which it will be interesting & fun to see the premiums in action. Naturally, this has to be balanced for both owners and non-owners of premiums. So imagine the "unbalanced" PvE scenarios, with unequal sides and teams, with differing objectives, but one side has the "host responsibility" of only or mostly using premiums the event was created for, while the other side uses normal and maybe other premium ships to battle against them. But because of the 4 attribute factors listed above, the hosted-premiums side will have to make use of the unique strengths of their premiums to succeed in their goal, possibly experiencing an effort symbolically significant of the actual historical legacies of the premiums, and possibly playing a more pressured, but also spotlight-chance-to-shine role, due to the "no lose" factor of premium ships. To balance it out, they may even get temporary special buffs for their premiums in that mode, or special event rewards afterwards, for acting our their role properly. While the rest of the population gets to enjoy a stress-free, fun-centric, experience and immersion centric mode where they are not being put into the pressured roles, enjoying more favourable and relaxing setups for that encounter (such as having more ships to "swarm" the premiums, though the premiums get a respawn or staged reinforcement phase). Special mention of @TheCinC to organize "historical scenarios", and the possibility of more coordination between in-game features with real-world historical legacies in general as mentioned in attribute 3. This desire has been expressed by players since the very beginning of WoWs, and now, years later, we may finally have the means to satisfy those who call for "all or nothing" (with hopes to the 'all' side) celebration of history, but which was not possible years ago due to the level of infrastructure of WoWs at the time, and were only represented in meek "event missions" not even earning unique camouflages, but just plain rewards such as premium consumables. How far WoWs has come indeed. So the "premium-centric gamemode" idea can allow for the possibility of historical re-enactments as well, with easier organization, easier participation, and better production quality. As for the possibility of "unique modifiers and altered game rules", think rules like "all torpedoes gain 20 knots speed and 20% range, but all torpedoes become DWT", or "all fires have halved duration, but doubled total damage, and have no stack limit", or "friendly caps generate ocean currents which speed up friendly ships but slow down enemy ships". Or just even more unique and interesting "game modifiers" ideas which unfortunately have slipped from my mind for now, but which a professional game dev team would be able to come up with regularly, and which will result in unique and interesting game conundrums necessitating strategy and intellect to overcome, for instance, the "DWT" modifier will probably be very unfriendly to BBs, and extremely more so if doubled with the "ocean currents" modifier. Yes, can stack and combine up combinations of unique and interesting modifiers, maybe 2-3 at once, to provide for a very interesting and unique perspective on the game, and possibly a change from the boredom of the same game modes which have been so every day for 3 whole years. It will also provide opportunity for WG to gather "unique statistics" and generate conclusions which will not be possible, or less relevant and prevalent if attempted from normal modes, to help them gain insight on balancing and game design. (disclaimer: this "modifier" idea is not original, I stole it from SC2 mutations). ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ While it is a "good thing" WG is being generous, giving out rewards in the form of containers, camo, and special mission rewards more than ever, I personally do not think it is the best idea to offer the "unmoderated" generosity in the way WG is doing, for both the good of the playerbase, and WG. For instance, one of the reasoning behind the idea of including "rent-a-premium" tokens in container drops, besides giving players chance to "test drive" a premium, was to send the message that "we want you to get more rewards, but instead of giving it to you directly, which is no fun, we will instead loan you a premium to earn rewards yourself." Should you consider my explanation of attribute 4 as well, then it also means a more holistic attempt to optimize and improve the whole "progression" experience, aka. the grind as designed in this game, to be a more compact and integrated game experience that will function as a strong and beautiful core design for the game, and not necessitate "external moderators" such as these "regular supply-drops" patched-on to function. So just better system design in general. (ideas to improve, or direction of improvement of lootbox system, was also briefly entertained before, but is not main focus for today besides the common idea of "rent-a-premium" tokens as a semi-rare drop). This ties in my views of WG needing more showmanship and gamification in WoWs. Giving out generosity to players, while workable as a industry strategy, and possibly even as a gesture, is not just "give players more rewards, more stuff, pile it on", no. There are much more unforgiving, stingy, strict and authoritative games and franchises out there, some even less interesting than WoWs, that have larger playerbases, more devote fans, and possibly even greater critical acclaim. The reasons for this is multiplex and intricate, such as from artistic, from logic and logistics perspectives, but the core reasoning is that still it is a compact, integrated, high-completion work of a game very relevant and compatible to its chosen context be it real or fictional, and very interesting and fun. Does "piling on rewards" directly address any of those concepts in the last sentence? Not really, and it is not even the best course of action to appease players, it is simply too simple and unsophisticated. Features need to become systems in the game, culminating in a whole image, idea, concept, of a game and experience. Some parts of WoWs are too subtle on this, while other areas are too rough ... and far from being "fun" enough, amongst many other things. Thus the endeavors including this one as suggested, is still to aim for the ultimate end of finding possibilities and directions for WoWs to continuously evolve and improve, and the player experience of it as well. Last (2) paragraph(s) (sry xD): personal rambling not very related to main topic: remember Strangers123's "replay analysis service"? the "free service?", ye, won't happen if it's free. I told him so. But, imagine if it was gamified, systemized, hosted with showmanship ... such as a "plays of the week" style showcase reel resembling WoT ones prevalent on youtube, but more strategic and functional. Imagine if it was done for carriers, showing good decisions, bad decisions, and interaction with those decisions? Interactive questions, as in chess-setup problems: this is happening, this is happening, these are the factors in place, what will be your choice? click on the screen. Ok, so this was performed, but then this and this happened because of this and this. Interactive tutorial, even. This is what I mean by gamification, and if done well, it rises to showmanship, with more to rise. These are not just for show, they are highly practical and functional as well ... imagine a interactive CV tutorial for players, in which they get to make the strategic decision of sending planes to protect allies or not, but all they have to do is click a choice button, and they will then be able to have plenty of time to watch the enactment, and little distraction from struggling to perform the maneuver themselves, thus letting the results, and the moral of the story, sink in, instead of idk during the chaos of a normal game. And these are not even irrelevant, much less unpractical. For instance, imagine if WoWs had to one day design a campaign (that also served as a subtle, intuitive, deep tutorial). Or more highly sophisticated scripted and actually directed scenarios. The experience and insights from creating, hosting and managing endeavors such as these, will go a long way to make the final effort easier, and the final product, possibly amazing. Thank you for reading. TL;DR I am bad at writing tl;drs right after I finish a post. Give me some time to come back to it, or just read the thing if you are impatient.
  13. hola a todos: Me gustaria saber si por casualidad se pudiera comprar el beltfast o el destructor Black americano, en la tienda no estan y me gustaria saber si hay algun modo de conseguir esos barcos, Un saludo y a navegar.
  14. Hello all! I just wanted to ask, what is the best option in premium store now, to boost my xp? Recently i bought "The sailmaker's deal" pack, but i'm running out of it (and it was just 50% boost anyway). :( I tought that i'm gonna buy the full flag package, but it's containing too much non economic flags. Not worth the price (for me at least). I just want to boost my xp the best i can. Base and free xp too. So my next thought was to buy "Woman's day" camo, but it's just in (max. of) 50 package. And i'm not sure worth to buy like 4 of them for 40+ eur. :/ Next option is "Viva La france" camo in 200 package for 30 eur or so. But it's just adds 75% boost if i recall that correct. It's a pity that there is no flag packages like "Red Dragon" or "Ouroboros" :( What is your best suggestion guys? I don't have exact money limit, but i don't want to spend (waste) too much (pointless) money either. Thanks for your suggestions! O3EE
  15. Allow premium players to have 4 Campaign Mission Tasks "in progress" at the same time instead of the standard 3.
  16. Yop plop à tous! Je viens de constater en furetant négligemment dans les arbres techno que certains navires prémiums ont disparus de l'achat en doublons. Bon. Le Missouri, le Kutuzov, on le sait, on carrément été retiré de la liste des achats possible. Soit. Mais je regarde l'arbre Fr et je n'y voit plus le dunk. "Tiens" me dis-je "ils ont dû le retirer pour pousser à l'acheter via la boutique. Étrange mais bon... on va pas chipoter" Puis, je zieute furtivement les autres arbres, et même chose : plein de navires ont disparus. Mikasa, Enterprise, etc etc... Par acquit de conscience, et poru valider ma théorie première, je file voir la boutique prémium et... Non, rien, quetchi, nada... pas mal de navire ont disparu de la possibilité d'achat, que ce soit en doublons ou via la boutique... Alors je le demande : Que fait la police? Des navires innocents sont kidnappés et la presse n'en parle même pas! Un complot des illuminati réptiliens habitants la terre plate (et creuse)? Une opération de la CIA?
  17. Prendere e quale premium

    Ciao a tutti, volevo fare una domanda "semplice". Sono molto appassionato ma poco esperto in quanto è da poco che ho cominciato a giocare... vorrei comprare una nave premium, mi piacerebbe una bb, e volevo avere da voi dei consigli. I top sono kii, tirpitz ed alabama ma avevo letto su internet che sconsigliano di acquistare una nave tier maggiore rispetto a dove sono arrivato, me lo confermate? e in caso, come mai?
  18. Gascogne

    Wątek poświęcony Gascogne, francuskiemu pancernikowi premium VIII tieru.
  19. As u can see in the screenshot, they had 3 premium ships(belfast, atlanta, kamikaze) incidentally the top 3 in the match , we had 0; being that premium ships are often more powerful than normal ships, they should be distributed equally between the teams, what do u think?

    Dear war gaming, 1. Standard and domination game modes must be selective before enetering a random game!!! At least then whoever your team mates are will know and have chosen a game type to play and lose in !!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2. 2 cv's, 5 dd's and torpedo laden cruisers per random game .. Enough .. Too many torpedo laden ships .. Players dont even bother firing guns and just spam torpedoes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (2.5 one cv and 3 dd's per side is enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) (2.6 make dynamic aiming standard ..................... Enough of the guess work for new players .... Get them used to aiming guns rather than spamming torps) 4. Divisions must share there plans with the rest of the team 5. Stats over gamemode !!!!!!!!! Stop rewarding damage only and bad play ... What is the point of capping or defence ? If the only thing in a players profile that counts is damage done that prevents you from being called a edited or edited? (5.5 is it any wonder that cv's and dd's are favoured by new players and bb's are been shot to pieces ?) 6. Players know how to report before they know how to play the game .... Enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7.2 around the corner ffs .. Enough already !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fix what is broken !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  21. Commander retraining dilemma

    Hey captains! I seem to be a little confused right now. Let me narrate relevant information in points: 1) Found a 10 point Russian commander in reserve. (Fully trained) 2) Assigned it to Budyonny. Selected option to retrain for free. 3) Sold the Budyonny for quick cash. Commander sent to reserve. (Still retraining) 4) Bought Derzki. Assigned retraining Budyonny Captain for free. Started retraining from scratch. 5) realized I have an Oktyabryskaya Revolutsiya (premium ship- USSR) 6) Assigned Budyonny Captain (which is now in Derzki) to oktyalutsiya. 7) realized that Captain is NOT retrained completely. 8) assigned previous oktyalutsiya Captain back into it. 9) realized that oktyalutsiya Captain needs to be retrained as well. 10)assigned 10 point Captain back to Derzki. Still reading from scratch. I have learned the fact that premium ships can retrain completely for free. Anything that I'm missing here or is it because of too much vodka? Valuable inputs are much appreciated.
  22. It is simply put. If the new direction of WG is to make stock tech-tree ships "average", but try to compensate for that by adding more and more premiums which are noticeably more desirable, interesting, even superior to tech tree choices, such as the new Asashio and the upcoming Stalingrad, then it will need to consider the game-wide qualitative impact such a design direction will have on the game. The game will be moving from "f2p" to increasingly "free to try, but not free to play (at high tiers), and definitely not free to enjoy". This is reminding me of the textbook "predatory" freemium design practices from last decade or two, focusing on whales and peer pressure, culminating in games which are all but unplayable without inputting money. One way WG can avoid moving in that direction, by money-gating players away from better ships to enjoy the game with (or forever stay in the low tiers where it is "free to enjoy"), is to introduce more ways for players to earn doubloons. An insignificant amount, but allowing the player to buy 1 or 2 small to medium premium ships every few months (or a T8+ premium with about half a year), with regular play. Via completing missions, challenges, seasonal events, queuing up with "in need" ship classes to help with game balance, playing well and for the team, etc. Note this is a very different concept from the "lootbox" incentive, which has its flaws, and is more in line with most recent insights in next gen mobile development philosophies. I will not go into either the flaws of the current lootbox design, or all of the highlights of next-gen f2p design (unless someone asks), because that is WG's job, and not the focus of this post. My main point is still that this design departure is concerning because it is the first major divergence from the WoT line of practices WG has inherited. WoT, while having lots of premiums, stayed away from premium bias for a very long time, and I would think this contributed to its popularity. Further adding options to earn gold via clan wars and other for example, made even the gold-fed premium ammo and other past issues much more bearable than without. But if WoWs becomes known as "the game where premium ships, whole ships, are better than tech-tree ships", then there is little possible to save it, even substantial improvements in graphics, gameplay, and polish. These qualitative issues simply have much more impact than technical or design problems ever will. Thus, if WG decides to restructure the game around premiums, then it should consider a major revision of the game's core design philosophy, and core systems, so that the game is compatible with such designs. The upcoming CV overhaul is also a good opportunity to be the first of many more restructurings. So please note that I did not say this "premium bias" is necessarily a bad thing, because nowadays there are more advanced gen designs which even make use of it, but still, keep in mind that for a long time in the past this line of design was nothing short of horrific. WoWs has come a long way since CBT, and design direction changes (more like updates) are inevitable, but given the precarious balance the game still relies on, it is best to not push thy luck, so to say.
  23. I just got Jean-Jacques Honoré and I want to specialize him to Normandie. But the game doesn't propose me to specialize him to Normandie because .... it's premium right now ! I want to specialize him and retrain him on Normandie while it's still premium but I can't find how ....
  24. Aigle

    Aigle französischer Zerstörer Hier alles rein was ihr zum Tier VI Premium Zerstörer, welchen man sich (aktuell) erspielen kann, zu berichten habt. Hier schön im passendem Hafen: Daten gibts unter http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Aigle (hab schon Module eingebaut ) Blaubeeren Wenn der Bereich für französische Zerstörer vorhanden ist, bitte verschieben. edit: Dem Wunsch wurde entsprochen
  25. How does the premium shop work?

    Posting this in the newcomer section as I think it kinda belongs here. I got a coupon for 20% but most of the stuff in the premium shop isn't really interesting to me. I'd want the Scharnhorst but it appears to have disappeared from the premium shop. Other ships are now in the premium shop, but is it possible to see which ones will be in the premium shop or when the ships are changed?