Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
InfinityIncarnate

Matchmaking Tier imbalances.

80 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
28 posts
1,067 battles

Greetings everyone.

I know this subject is something that has been greatly debated before, but in my opinion is something WG really should be fixing as a priority, because even a T1 difference is imbalanced, and it might be from a realistic perspective that the ships did outclass each other in terms of their values, however from a gamebalance perspective it's not balanced when there is great difference in both hp, armor, damage potential and quite possibly also player skill difference as higher tiers are obtained through gameplay. So obviously the higher tier ship players will most likely also have more experience with the game, and thus potentially also better skill and knowledge about the game. Getting matches after matches where you're among the lowest tier ships in the match, and not only that you might even be greatly outnumbered, is just outright horrible.

In my opinion they should make the matches equal tier matches, or buff the lower tier ships so they match the highest tier ships in all the respective values for their respective type, not just armor, hp and damage potential.
Why do I think this? Because it needs to be properly balanced with regards to it being player vs. player. How it is now is in no way reasonable or fair, and if you were to compare this to other PvP games that uses a level system to balance the game, then the tier difference is the equivalent of level difference as level directly affect defensive and offensive values and capabilities. Basically the lower level or in the case of WoWs - the lower tier is at a disadvantage, where the higher the tier difference the worse the disadvantage will be. Currently, the two tier difference can potentially mean almost one-hit kills, even without detonating the ammunition. I just had a game where we were two T7' and there were four T9's, one of them being a carrier - guess what happened? I didn't survive thats for sure, because even when I tried avoiding the high tier ships, the carrier took me out, where I litterally had no chance of dodging or surviving it - two hits from it's divebombers. Then you might go, carriers aren't balanced and are currently being reworked, and so on. But the fact is, that just makes it a whole lot worse than it already is.

As I stated, I think the only way to fix this imbalance is to scale the lower tier ships accordingly in each match, the scaling should based on their type and their tier and the highest tiers of ships. Or to make the matches be equal tier matches, which in my opinion only would make the matches less diverse, which wouldn't be a good thing, but the one and two tier differences isn't good either. I think using the first option would be the way to go, because that way the playing field becomes more even. Then you might be like that people just need to get better at the game, or suck it up and play a new match. The only way a lower tier ship of can beat a higher tier ship of it's same type, is to outplay it - but guess what, if both both players are of equal skill, then the lower tier ship will be sunk. Even if the lower tier ship player is actually better, the player still might be beaten by the higher tier ship player. But then what if the higher tier ship player is of better skill than the lower tier ship player? The high tier player will absolutely wreck the lower tier player, and the lower tier player won't stand much of chance against it due to being at a game mechanical disadvantage, and it's this disadvantage that is the actual problem.

I sincerely do hope Wargaming realizes that the game isn't balanced the way that matchmaking is now, and will fix it with due haste. Because a game that isn't properly balanced will lead to bad game play experiences, and considering how many a playing WoWs, it will be a lot of bad game play experiences - personally I've had a lot of those already, and I'm in no way a new player. Sure it can be an interesting challenge, but it won't keep being that way, eventually it just won't be fun.

The main point is that tier differences in matches means greater game mechanical and value differences, and that means the game isn't balanced, which simply put means that no matter how you try to defend it - it just simply isn't balanced and WG should fix this ASAP!

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,590 posts
7,068 battles

WG doesnt wanna fix +-2 MM, yet here you are with "FIX ASAP" +-0 MM request. Kinda optimistic, dont you think?

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
28 posts
1,067 battles
15 minutes ago, nambr9 said:

WG doesnt wanna fix +-2 MM, yet here you are with "FIX ASAP" +-0 MM request. Kinda optimistic, dont you think?

It might be that they don't want to, but that doesn't change the fact that it's T1-2 tier differences are greatly imbalanced, and as such they should be fixing it.

Actually, my request isn't specifically that they change the matches to be with no tier difference, but they balance the tier differences in the matches, so that the individual matches becomes balanced, so that the match becomes fair for everyone.

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
[DAVY]
Players
1,419 posts
8,419 battles

please, provide us with some screen shots of matches with "tier differences in the matches, so that the individual matches becomes balanced"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
28 posts
1,067 battles
13 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Teams are balanced in Tiers. That counts.

No it doesn't, especially because each ship can fire at any ship they have within range. Furthermore, if the high tier ships can very fast take out the lower tier ships, and guess how fun that is for a low tier ship player? But not only that, it also completely wrecks the actual intended team balance. It doesn't make it any better that ships are evenly matched in the respective "lanes"/sides, because you could encounter a match where many of the high tiers are in one side, but on the other team's respective side it's where most of the low tiers are, and if both sides sail directly towards each other, guess who will be facing each other...

  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,688 posts
10,389 battles

This is a teamgame. Both teams have similar ships.

Stop looking at the game from your ego perspecive!

Players that get sunk quickly are doing it wrong.

  • Cool 3
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,709 posts
13,166 battles
8 minutes ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

guess how fun that is for a low tier ship player?

 

Which will make the lower tier player want to grind the higher tier ship, potentially spending money in the premium shop to accelerate the process significantly. You're practically asking WG to destroy a big part of their own business model.

Also fun takes a very far backseat when it comes to PvP game design. The entire goal of any PvP game is to ruin the fun of your opponent by winning, therefore the "fun" a player has when on the receiving end of a mechanic is completely irrelevant. Mechanics have to be fun to use, not fun to be a target of.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
28 posts
1,067 battles
1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

This is a teamgame. Both teams have similar ships.

Stop looking at the game from your ego perspecive!

Players that get sunk quickly are doing it wrong.

It's a teamgame, yes, but with tier differences it's imbalanced. So, yes they have similar ships, but both sides in a match where there are tier differences will lower tier ships, those players specifically will be at a gamemechanical disadvantage.
No matter how much you try to pin this on my so called "ego" perspective, it doesn't change the fact the lower tier players in a match - on both sides are at a game mechanical disadvantage, and it's actually not just one, but many different game mechanical disadvantages, like hp, armor, range, damage potential, etc. So this isn't about an ego perspective, but it from a game balance perspective.
Players can still get sunk quickly even when doing it "correctly".

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
28 posts
1,067 battles
6 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Which will make the lower tier player want to grind the higher tier ship, potentially spending money in the premium shop to accelerate the process significantly. You're practically asking WG to destroy a big part of their own business model.

Also fun takes a very far backseat when it comes to PvP game design. The entire goal of any PvP game is to ruin the fun of your opponent by winning, therefore the "fun" a player has when on the receiving end of a mechanic is completely irrelevant. Mechanics have to be fun to use, not fun to be a target of.

Actually, those players that buy premium ships who don't have the necessary skill to play in those tiers, just hurt matchmaking more - so even if their goal is to make money, it should still be in their interest to make it fair for everyone, especially when there is also ranked play. So no, I'm not asking them to destroy a big part of their own business model, I'm asking them to make it fair and balanced for all.

"Fun takes a very far backseat when it comes to PvP design".... That is where you're very wrong. When designing PvP game design it has to be equal for both sides, and the gameplay has to be fun and enjoyable. The entire goal of a PvP game isn't to ruin the fun of the opponent by winning, the game should still be fun whether you win or lose. Even when we play to win, it's still a game and as such it has to be fun and enjoyable, no matter if you lose or win. Of course it becomes more enjoyable when you keep winning, but when you keep losing because you're at game mechanical disadvantages, you eventually lose interest and stop playing altogether, which is a detriment to their business model, because losing potential customers is not a good thing, plus it also hurts the game's reputation when players stop playing and talk about why they stopped playing.

Gamebalance should be an important priority for any video game developer, WG included, especially those that deal with making games that are PvP oriented. And they could relatively easily fix this imbalance by scaling the values  of ships appropriately during the matchmaking, so that every player's ship is balanced accordingly to what ships and their tiers are in the match. For instance World of Warcraft has fixed their level imbalances in the battlegrounds with Tenacity, but doesn't fix it completely because there are some other issues as well, like more and better abilities, but it does make every player's character able to survive longer in comparison to what it's up against. So if WG did something similar, they shouldn't just be scaling hp, they should be scaling all of the values - values like armor, hp, range of armaments, damage potential, penetration values, etc. Why? Because that is really one of the only ways they can fix it without changing the tier differences in the matches, and it's also one of those that would make the most sense to implement to balance it. The tier differences in the matches are not currently balance, far from it.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,688 posts
10,389 battles
21 minutes ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

It's a teamgame, yes, but with tier differences it's imbalanced. So, yes they have similar ships, but both sides in a match where there are tier differences will lower tier ships, those players specifically will be at a gamemechanical disadvantage.
No matter how much you try to pin this on my so called "ego" perspective, it doesn't change the fact the lower tier players in a match - on both sides are at a game mechanical disadvantage, and it's actually not just one, but many different game mechanical disadvantages, like hp, armor, range, damage potential, etc. So this isn't about an ego perspective, but it from a game balance perspective.
Players can still get sunk quickly even when doing it "correctly".

No, they do not.

 

And yes, a cruiser is at a gamemechanical disadvantage towards a BB, even when toptier. That is part of the game. You will not change that with +0 MM.

But as I said, the team counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
396 posts
6,939 battles
26 minutes ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

It's a teamgame, yes, but with tier differences it's imbalanced. So, yes they have similar ships, but both sides in a match where there are tier differences will lower tier ships, those players specifically will be at a gamemechanical disadvantage.
No matter how much you try to pin this on my so called "ego" perspective, it doesn't change the fact the lower tier players in a match - on both sides are at a game mechanical disadvantage, and it's actually not just one, but many different game mechanical disadvantages, like hp, armor, range, damage potential, etc. So this isn't about an ego perspective, but it from a game balance perspective.
Players can still get sunk quickly even when doing it "correctly".

Balance isnt far off apart of odd DD miss match where other team has sneaky gunboat and the other gunboat with 1km+ worse consealment. 

 

Only tiers that have greater imbalance are t8-10 vs lower, since you get extra module slots and t9 yet an other module and heal for cruisers. 

 

If the game was like WoT where gold magic ammo is needet to pen higher tier ships yes there would be a problem, but as it is its fine alltough t8 being bottom tier so ofter should be looked at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,709 posts
13,166 battles
1 hour ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

Actually, those players that buy premium ships who don't have the necessary skill to play in those tiers, just hurt matchmaking more - so even if their goal is to make money, it should still be in their interest to make it fair for everyone, especially when there is also ranked play. So no, I'm not asking them to destroy a big part of their own business model, I'm asking them to make it fair and balanced for all.

 

The goal of balance is to achieve roughly equal odds for competitors outside of the human factor. The competitors in this game also aren't the individual players but the two teams. That there is a potato captaining a premium ship thus doesn't matter. What matters is that there is a ship of the same class and the same tier on the opposite team.

And said potato already spent money, that's their interest fulfilled.

Also ranked exists. It may be seasonal, but it exists.

 

1 hour ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

That is where you're very wrong.

 

If the goal is to have fun no matter what, then why is taking damage in this game not fun? Why is taking a torpedo not fun? Or getting bombed? Or taking a citadel hit? Or just losing in general?

Making parts of the game not fun is intentional because it facilitates the natural learning process. If you can derive fun from getting beaten, fine. That's your subjective point of view. From an objective design standpoint however dying, losing or being made the target of any mechanic, be it getting spotted, shot at, bombed, torpedoed, etc. in this game in particular, is intentionally designed to be not fun so that people will learn how to avoid or deal with these non-fun parts of the game.

If you design a PvP game to always be fun no matter the situation you have failed so hard as a game designer that you'll not only lose your job, you'll never work in this industry ever again.

 

And please, stop it with "it's just a game, we should all be having fun". How serious you take a game is up to you, that's fine, but a PvP game by nature is a competition. The player that spends more time and effort should always have the advantage over someone who doesn't, the tier system just turns that into something that can be monetized.

Quite frankly this is like complaining that it is unfair some amateur chess player can't beat a grandmaster.

 

1 hour ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

For instance World of Warcraft

 

WoW has a monthly subscription system that inevitably makes a dev want to retain their playerbase or otherwise they would make no money, aka it's pay to play. WoWs doesn't have that issue as it is free to play. The goals and monetization philosophy of the two devs are completely different and thus the balancing measures they use incompatible.

 

Again the tier system and the differences in the power of higher tier and lower tier ships is the fundamental basis of how this game is supposed to make money. E.g. a T8 ships thus must be far more powerful than a T6 one but at the same time far inferior to a T10 ship. And ships of different tiers get put into the same match so that the lower tier player can see what he can look forward to and grind towards. This grind can then either take a lot of time, or not as long or even skipped entirely via using their wallet.

Is this unfair to the lower tier player? No, because again the individual is not the target of balance. The team is the target of balance. For every low tier player there is an opponent of the same class and the same tier on the opposite team. That's balance.

And if he gets trashed by the higher tier player, who has either spent more money or more time on this game to get said higher tier ship, that provides an incentive for the lower tier player to also spend more time and/or money on this game. Sure, some will quit over this, but most will stay because the higher tier ship that you got trashed by can be acquired for free by you too (barring premium ships ofc, but that just provides more incentive to spend money). As such the number of quitters is of no consequence. That's monetization.

 

By decreasing the difference in power between higher and lower tier ships, you are giving players less reasons to spend money on the game as you are literally undermining the fundamental basis of the monetization system your game is built upon. And without monetization the game cannot exist, thus your views on balance, fun and fairness will never be taken seriously by WG.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,912 posts
5,171 battles
3 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Which will make the lower tier player want to grind the higher tier ship, potentially spending money in the premium shop to accelerate the process significantly. You're practically asking WG to destroy a big part of their own business model.

 

This. And thats pretty much all. Now you can go on, @InfinityIncarnate and argue, how much better the game would be and what else, and yea, you might very well be right, but it doesnt matter. Thats the business modell we are in and it needs this. So, if you are bored, you can go on and "discuss" pro and contras, which is going to change nothing anyway, or you just accept this fact.

 

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

WoW has a monthly subscription system that inevitably makes a dev want to retain their playerbase or otherwise they would make no money, aka it's pay to play. WoWs doesn't have that issue as it is free to play. The goals and monetization philosophy of the two devs are completely different and thus the balancing measures they use incompatible.

 

Funny enough: When WoW was new, I knew quite some people that went to that game right away and asked me to join them. Back then I said "im never going to play a game, for which I have to pay monthly". Nowadays, I´d do anything if we could switch to this model over here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,204 posts
4,348 battles
4 hours ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

So obviously the higher tier ship players will most likely also have more experience with the game, and thus potentially also better skill and knowledge about the game.

LOL

If you ever saw the average top tier player, yeah, no, they aren't better than what you find at T4. 

3 hours ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

Furthermore, if the high tier ships can very fast take out the lower tier ships, and guess how fun that is for a low tier ship player?

I find it quite nice when I top the scoreboard in my T6 in a T8 game or T7 in T9. The only reason it can get frustrating is when you are in T5 and basically see most of your matches vs T7, but as long as tiers have a reasonable chance of also being top tier, it's not too terrible.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_MIA_]
Players
2,955 posts
5,366 battles
4 hours ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

In my opinion they should make the matches equal tier matches, or buff the lower tier ships so they match the highest tier ships in all the respective values for their respective type, not just armor, hp and damage potential.
Why do I think this? Because it needs to be properly balanced with regards to it being player vs. player. How it is now is in no way reasonable or fair, and if you were to compare this to other PvP games that uses a level system to balance the game, then the tier difference is the equivalent of level difference as level directly affect defensive and offensive values and capabilities. Basically the lower level or in the case of WoWs - the lower tier is at a disadvantage, where the higher the tier difference the worse the disadvantage will be. Currently, the two tier difference can potentially mean almost one-hit kills, even without detonating the ammunition. I just had a game where we were two T7' and there were four T9's, one of them being a carrier - guess what happened? I didn't survive thats for sure, because even when I tried avoiding the high tier ships, the carrier took me out, where I litterally had no chance of dodging or surviving it - two hits from it's divebombers. Then you might go, carriers aren't balanced and are currently being reworked, and so on. But the fact is, that just makes it a whole lot worse than it already is.

 

I agree with CVs - it would be better for them and the others if CVs would have +/-1 MM. Doesnt matter anymore since rework, and we dont know how it will turn out.

 

On the other part: You can always do something. Problem is, it just happens too often that lowtiers start with a crap attitude and die needlessly very early because they feel they cant do anything. And this is wrong.

Have 2 screens here from not too long ago:

 

Spoiler

shot-18_08.29_14_27.43-0300.thumb.jpg.a9071441852ea19310b260b11c46703a.jpgshot-18_09.01_23_41.25-0955.thumb.jpg.ab91ca301fd249dcb08ca777d94f0fd2.jpg

 

We survived both matches - one which we were downtiered HEAVILY. I was forced to block center cap of Epicenter for several minutes - but that didnt matter too much, since their DD (yugumo) was more useless than me all the time. I could atleast shoot occasionally, he tried to torp with low success, because my hydro did detect them atleast sometimes. Enemies didnt keep their crap together, and started yoloing 1by1 at <5mins to play. Before that, it looked better for them.

Still, if we would have just said "ah [edited], we cant do anything" we would have just lost those matches.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ICI]
[ICI]
Players
416 posts
2,700 battles

With the exception of T8 I have no problem being low tiered in a match. Your role just becomes different and you need to adjust your play style to a more conservative role. I just pick a high tiered teammate and support him/her. DD's have the least worries being low tiered. They need to be very careful tho of some high tier enemy DD's they can face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
2,738 posts
9,874 battles
4 hours ago, nambr9 said:

WG doesnt wanna fix +-2 MM, yet here you are with "FIX ASAP" +-0 MM request. Kinda optimistic, dont you think?

That's not completely true. Recently WG reps have been giving answers to the tune of "we aren't happy with the MM". They are looking into ways to ease to pressure on T8 ships for example and there are whispers that consumables (radar) will become part of the MM algorithm.

Even the latest Q&A had Sub_Octavian saying that they are trying to draw T10s out of the standard MM with endgame activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,590 posts
7,068 battles
1 hour ago, Aragathor said:

That's not completely true. Recently WG reps have been giving answers to the tune of "we aren't happy with the MM". They are looking into ways to ease to pressure on T8 ships for example and there are whispers that consumables (radar) will become part of the MM algorithm.

Even the latest Q&A had Sub_Octavian saying that they are trying to draw T10s out of the standard MM with endgame activities.

 

Sorry mate, but last time @Sub_Octavian spoke live regarding +-1 MM he was very clear.

He said they are not looking into adding another variable in the MM (including radar problem). Currently MM is using "tier / class / nation" variables and it will remain that way.

WG is looking into "other ways" of re-balancing problematic tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
2,738 posts
9,874 battles
46 minutes ago, nambr9 said:

 

Sorry mate, but last time @Sub_Octavian spoke live regarding +-1 MM he was very clear.

He said they are not looking into adding another variable in the MM (including radar problem). Currently MM is using "tier / class / nation" variables and it will remain that way.

WG is looking into "other ways" of re-balancing problematic tiers.

I think you misunderstood me, I did not mention the +/- 1 MM in my post. I referred to the gamsecom Q&A, and more precisely to:

 

Quote

+/-1 matchmaker: is it being considering for testing? They are not yet ready to seriously test/try that matchmaking, for obvious reasons which were already discussed. They don't think their current matchmaker is perfect, but they are not ready to go +/-1 yet. They will to implement better balance per nation first, stuff like consumables,... They are all in for improving, but not that drastic.

 

And

 

Quote

Q(2/4): T8 is regarded as being in a somewhat bad place for the matchmaker. It happens quite frequently of them being thrown into T10 matches. Are there plans to address this? Maybe indirectly by adding T11-12 battle tiers for the MM as WoT had, so you get T9-10 and T10 only matches.

A(2/4): We would like to avoid T11-12, but we're drawing some T10 away from random MM with additional endgame activities.

 

I really don't see you addressing my post...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TENGO]
Players
1,485 posts
8,252 battles
6 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Which will make the lower tier player want to grind the higher tier ship, potentially spending money in the premium shop to accelerate the process significantly. You're practically asking WG to destroy a big part of their own business model.

Also fun takes a very far backseat when it comes to PvP game design. The entire goal of any PvP game is to ruin the fun of your opponent by winning, therefore the "fun" a player has when on the receiving end of a mechanic is completely irrelevant. Mechanics have to be fun to use, not fun to be a target of.

Yup, also, that mechanism allows a "special" player who is +2, to dominate a better -2 player, which will give the first one a mental boost and thus extra reasons to keep playing.

 

2 hours ago, Riselotte said:

The only reason it can get frustrating is when you are in T5 and basically see most of your matches vs T7, but as long as tiers have a reasonable chance of also being top tier, it's not too terrible.

This is the main annoyance with the +/- system.

I am quite ok with +2-2 tiering, but there are multiple tiers where in practice it is just being downtiered mostly. And sure, there is a challenge to that, but the extra "challenge" to carry useless teammates in their ships two tiers higher is too much imho. Wasn't that new gamemode to alleviate tier 8s? Can't say I noticed one bit of difference.

 

I'm quite sure WG could hardcode it in their mm system, that every individual player would have a similar chance of being uptiered when downtiered the previous game, et vice versa, but they don't. Imho that's just to keep their model intact - i.e. drive downtiered players to spend resources to get to the higher tier as fast as possible, as per what El2a explained.

 

I can't believe people take the BS PR that WG spreads about their (e.g.) "concerns for tier 8 mm" seriously. How many times do those people have to spread utter lies? They also had "concerns" about BBs being too prolific and too hard to kill, member?

Do you feel the concernation?...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RO-RN]
Players
144 posts
4,333 battles

lest stop crying about matchmaking, yes it is true it should be -1 +1 but somewhere else someone ranted about matchmaking as well and after 4 or 5 or even more years they finally ,,fixed,, it... only to find out you will be bottom tier 9 out of 10 battles and in that 1 battle you will be middle tier. are you sure you realy want that???  to be bottom tier all the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,204 posts
4,348 battles
13 minutes ago, Saiyko said:

This is the main annoyance with the +/- system.

I am quite ok with +2-2 tiering, but there are multiple tiers where in practice it is just being downtiered mostly. And sure, there is a challenge to that, but the extra "challenge" to carry useless teammates in their ships two tiers higher is too much imho. Wasn't that new gamemode to alleviate tier 8s? Can't say I noticed one bit of difference.

Don't notice much either. But I also didn't look much at data and don't want to go by "feels". I did have games being top tier T8. I did have games playing T6 vs T8.

Also, I feel like it depends a bit on tier, class and ship. T8 DD and BB kind of can handle T10, T8 cruisers have to be incredibly careful. And for example ships like some DDs or BBs lose more when uptiered than others. Harekaze for example manages T10 ok, given it has great concealment with good torps and basically can carry T10 games still. I doubt something like Cossack is as nice. Similarly for example at T7, something like Gneisenau/Scharnhorst or Hood get by still vs T9, playing like a better armoured Kronshtadt without radar, while Nelson is just suffering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×