Someone explains to me the logic behind the credits earning and expenditure

[Panocek]

3 minutes ago, Silfuin said:

I have 4800 iron ... pretty far from the 27000 needed fdor Ragnar.

 

As for snowflakes ... explain?
I don't know anything about snowflakes ...

"Snowflakes" is catch-all term used for Wargaming christmas and game anniversary events, where you get certain one-time rewards for playing your ships. You can clearly see current one as you set port filter to "festive rewards".

 

Christmas snowflakes tend to give coal for midtiers, steel for hightiers and "certificates" for tier 10s, which then you can exchange for loot boxes. Game anniversary usually does the same, but instead certificates it gives supercontainers for tier 10s.

[Silfuin]

20 minutes ago, Panocek said:

"Snowflakes" is catch-all term used for Wargaming christmas and game anniversary events, where you get certain one-time rewards for playing your ships. You can clearly see current one as you set port filter to "festive rewards".

 

Christmas snowflakes tend to give coal for midtiers, steel for hightiers and "certificates" for tier 10s, which then you can exchange for loot boxes. Game anniversary usually does the same, but instead certificates it gives supercontainers for tier 10s.

Thank you, will check it out.

A doubt has come to my mind  ... in the ships section of the armory if I select to see the ships who have "increased credits gain" Aigle, Gallant and Anshan are not showed.
Are we sure that they have indeed higher credit printing potential?
I see other DDs, either sold for coal or dobloons, but lowest tier is VIII and ships on that tier are sold for dobloons. Is there any way to get dobloons without paying for them? I guess not, but asking is not gonna hurt ....

[MoveZig]

18 minutes ago, Silfuin said:

Thank you, will check it out.

A doubt has come to my mind  ... in the ships section of the armory if I select to see the ships who have "increased credits gain" Aigle, Gallant and Anshan are not showed.
Are we sure that they have indeed higher credit printing potential?
I see other DDs, either sold for coal or dobloons, but lowest tier is VIII and ships on that tier are sold for dobloons. Is there any way to get dobloons without paying for them? I guess not, but asking is not gonna hurt .... 

- A few monthly from daily login drops

- Ranked (this is the main way of getting some for free consistently, but it's not a whole lot). How much depends on the league you're in and whether you make it to Rank 1. Rewards and rank renews every 2 weeks and the tiers you need change with each season (next one is t6/8/9-10).

- Supercontainers and Satan's Gifts, probably a few other container types as well.

[Panocek]

5 minutes ago, Silfuin said:

Thank you, will check it out.

A doubt has come to my mind  ... in the ships section of the armory if I select to see the ships who have "increased credits gain" Aigle, Gallant and Anshan are not showed.
Are we sure that they have indeed higher credit printing potential?
I see other DDs, either sold for coal or dobloons, but lowest tier is VIII and ships on that tier are sold for dobloons. Is there any way to get dobloons without paying for them? I guess not, but asking is not gonna hurt ....

All ships classified as premiums technically do have increased credit gains, but that bonus scales with tier and becomes significant on tier 8-9.

 

And game does throw small number of doubloons at you via monthly login, otherwise Ranked Battles have doubloons as rewards? That or get lucky with supercontainers.

[Ymustihaveaname]

1 hour ago, Silfuin said:

As for snowflakes ... explain?
I don't know anything about snowflakes ... 

The festive rewards that give you rewards for playing the ships for the first time for Xmass, for T5/6/7 you get coal/ for t8/9 you get Steel and 10 certs for free Xmass crates t11 RB?

[SnuSnu_RIP]

I'm sitting on 1.2 billion credits, and it's not difficult to make good credits - if you play well! If you suck, you lose. And in my opinion T10 is still way to cheap, should cost the double to avoid floods of bad players in hightier. DDs can earn also a lot of credits, a well played Cossack makes you easily 1 million credits. So think about it, and maybe it's time to think about your playstyle and change it. 

[Panocek]

11 minutes ago, SnuSnu_RIP said:

I'm sitting on 1.2 billion credits, and it's not difficult to make good credits - if you play well! If you suck, you lose. And in my opinion T10 is still way to cheap, should cost the double to avoid floods of bad players in hightier. DDs can earn also a lot of credits, a well played Cossack makes you easily 1 million credits. So think about it, and maybe it's time to think about your playstyle and change it. 

I don't think you can make "easily 1m credits" without premium and without at least blue credit booster.

[KhorneFlake]

33 minutes ago, Panocek said:

I don't think you can make "easily 1m credits" without premium and without at least blue credit booster.

Right, you can not.

With premium you easily can.

 

Since premium isnt that expensive (depends on the amount of course) it should be considered as an option to gain credits

[Silfuin]

1 hour ago, SnuSnu_RIP said:

I'm sitting on 1.2 billion credits, and it's not difficult to make good credits - if you play well! If you suck, you lose. And in my opinion T10 is still way to cheap, should cost the double to avoid floods of bad players in hightier. DDs can earn also a lot of credits, a well played Cossack makes you easily 1 million credits. So think about it, and maybe it's time to think about your playstyle and change it. 

Thank you for the advice, but in all honesty it is inherently inapplicable; your solution would be to change playstyle and/or getting good, which defies the scope why I play:
- "Change your playstyle" means  stop doing what I find fun in this game and
- "Getting good" means investing hugely in effort and time played, which I'm not willing to do.

 Anyway yesterday I had a match in Groningen with a credit income of 800k ... so I know what it takes to get to it.
I had premium account, and blue credit booster, so it's not like gaining that much in a lesser tier without a premium ship, premium account and blue grey credit boosters is all that likely.
I had a match in tier 4 where I was first of the pack with more than double the xp of the second, sunk 8 ships and dished out 70k damage, but gained "only" 200k credits (and I had premium account).

 

As for if TX is too cheap or not is personal opinion, but considering that the problem can easily be solved with money, you will have poor players anyway in tier X.
What you would like to have is maybe a system of player's levels where you get paierd with players of your level, but that would have other problems.
For example playing queue would be longer, winrate would invariably go down towards 50% (but level here would be more meaningful) and credit income would probably drop as with the absence of less skilled players it would be more difficult to rack up consistent amounts of credits.

Besides I consider that every player deserves to play the most fun ships, not just the good ones.
No to mention the issue that lesser players, who most probably have just a handful of skilled captains, would have to keep their best captains on less fun and less powerful ships ... only to be frequently uptiered (which when you are not a super player sucks).

 

2 hours ago, Ymustihaveaname said:

The festive rewards that give you rewards for playing the ships for the first time for Xmass, for T5/6/7 you get coal/ for t8/9 you get Steel and 10 certs for free Xmass crates t11 RB?

Thank you, already seen and trying to get them all.
I guess that with a 25% coupon I'll get my T6 premium soon enough.

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, Silfuin said:

Thank you for the advice, but in all honesty it is inherently inapplicable; your solution would be to change playstyle and/or getting good, which defies the scope why I play:
- "Change your playstyle" means  stop doing what I find fun in this game and
- "Getting good" means investing hugely in effort and time played, which I'm not willing to do.

You can't have cake and eat it too

 

1 hour ago, Silfuin said:

As for if TX is too cheap or not is personal opinion, but considering that the problem can easily be solved with money, you will have poor players anyway in tier X.
What you would like to have is maybe a system of player's levels where you get paierd with players of your level, but that would have other problems.
For example playing queue would be longer, winrate would invariably go down towards 50% (but level here would be more meaningful) and credit income would probably drop as with the absence of less skilled players it would be more difficult to rack up consistent amounts of credits.

No to mention the issue that lesser players, who most probably have just a handful of skilled captains, would have to keep their best captains on less fun and less powerful ships ... only to be frequently uptiered (which when you are not a super player sucks).

WG repeatedly denied any "skill" matchmaking in Random Battles, they are going to stay as they are. As they basically were in 2015. 2010 if you count World of Tanks.

 

1 hour ago, Silfuin said:

Besides I consider that every player deserves to play the most fun ships, not just the good ones.

Some people have fun by wining their games despite having "I play for fun" people in their team, fighting your own ship as you fight the enemy is something usually best avoided.

[GarrusBrutus]

1 hour ago, Silfuin said:

the problem can easily be solved with money

Wargambling in a nutshell. Please open up your wallet and enjoy your stay, sir. 

[Silfuin]

2 minutes ago, Panocek said:

You can't have cake and eat it too

Nothing wrong with checking if it's possible before quitting.
So far, with the simple purchase of some limited premium time (and I'll keep my eyes open for the Christmas discount) the credit income is already increased considerably and I now sit on some millions credits.
I'll continue to pursue the five epochs of the navy and will get a tier 6 premium as soon as I can.
Seems promising and if it keeps like that I'll continue.

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Wargambling in a nutshell. Please open up your wallet and enjoy your stay, sir. 

You mean they are company, not charity

 

Especially as good deal of players according to their own surveys are 26yo+. You know, the age when people tend to have more money than free time

[Ymustihaveaname]

4 hours ago, SnuSnu_RIP said:

, a well played Cossack makes you easily 1 million credits

Not all of us have played so well and so much in Cossack.... but my Cossack B will dream of that one day..!

[Silfuin]

18 hours ago, Ymustihaveaname said:

Not all of us have played so well and so much in Cossack.... but my Cossack B will dream of that one day..!

Why the edit?
Is it a secret how many games he had in Cossack and his winrate?
Anyway the point still stands: "easily" has a different meaning when said by a superunicum player (at least in a Cossack).
I bet average players wouldn't find that easy to get those number, let alone poor players like myself.

But it's OK, I don't aim at those numbers.
As long as I can manage to get on average 150k-200k per game I will be happy.

 

19 hours ago, Panocek said:

Some people have fun by wining their games despite having "I play for fun" people in their team, fighting your own ship as you fight the enemy is something usually best avoided.

It seems like you think that playing to have fun means inevitably doing stupid things and invariably being the worst player always.
It's not like that, after all if you think it carefully everyone plays to have fun, it's a game after all, and people play games exactly to have fun.

Now what it means having fun may differ from person to person.
There may be someone who doesn't care to win and does stupid things getting killed and giving disadvantage to his own team, but I think they are not so frequent.
As for me, having fun is just trying to win while having an active role.
I have done stupid things and died in the first 2 minutes or so, but that is not what I aim to do, so when it happens I take a mental note "nope, this is bad".
However it's not always so evident what I did do wrong (and sometimes it could be other players who did something wrong) and from time to time I'll be caught doing something stupid again.
So, if you factor in that I don' t play that many battles and don't have anyone to teach me this process becomes very very slow.

Should I not play with good players like you?
The only way this could happen is a skill matchmaking system, but you said yourself that wargaming denied it in Random Battles, so as long as it stays like that you will be matched with poor players.

And so I don't understand why it would be good to discourage less good players to play upper tier ships.

I repeat, this increase in cost in the upper tiers just makes poor players to stick to tier 9 or lower, which in turn will pair them against tier X and * anyway (usually played by good players for the same reasons)
I don't see anything good nor fair about it.
Poor players will get stomped from better players in better ships, and better players will have less credits because lesser tier opponents are less worth in the credits economy.
This also generates a perverse loop where when I am paired with higher tier ships I tend to stay very passive (because when I do a slight mistake I die in a matter of seconds), so the will to do something increase and when I'm finally paired with same tier or lower tier ships I tend to overdo and puit myself at risk unnecessarily.
 

[Panocek]

20 minutes ago, Silfuin said:

And so I don't understand why it would be good to discourage less good players to play upper tier ships.

Its enough "less good players" believe they will gain an advantage or at least equal footing by playing hightiers. And keep buying premium account to sustain them.

 

21 minutes ago, Silfuin said:

I repeat, this increase in cost in the upper tiers just makes poor players to stick to tier 9 or lower, which in turn will pair them against tier X and * anyway (usually played by good players for the same reasons)

You would be amazed how many people prefer to fork out 10€/month just to sustain playing whatever they want, even by virtue of "I spend more money on more dumb stuff".

 

21 minutes ago, Silfuin said:

I don't see anything good nor fair about it.
Poor players will get stomped from better players in better ships, and better players will have less credits because lesser tier opponents are less worth in the credits economy.
This also generates a perverse loop where when I am paired with higher tier ships I tend to stay very passive (because when I do a slight mistake I die in a matter of seconds), so the will to do something increase and when I'm finally paired with same tier or lower tier ships I tend to overdo and puit myself at risk unnecessarily.

Game BY DESIGN is not meant to be balanced, otherwise you wouldn't have +-2 tier spread in first place.

 

And as you've noticed, higher tiers aren't all rainbow and happiness. They never were, but they always had noticeable credit bill

 

Sure, you can say it is "bad game design". But is it truly bad, when this very modus operandi launched Wargaming from backwater Belarus company into worldwide corporation and then this very model was copied in number of games, War Thunder and Armored Warfare being most notable non WG titles?

You don't achieve such success by making players happy, but by making them pay up under pretense of having fun.

[Silfuin]

2 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Its enough "less good players" believe they will gain an advantage or at least equal footing by playing hightiers. And keep buying premium account to sustain them.

 

You would be amazed how many people prefer to fork out 10€/month just to sustain playing whatever they want, even by virtue of "I spend more money on more dumb stuff".

 

Game BY DESIGN is not meant to be balanced, otherwise you wouldn't have +-2 tier spread in first place.

 

And as you've noticed, higher tiers aren't all rainbow and happiness. They never were, but they always had noticeable credit bill

 

Sure, you can say it is "bad game design". But is it truly bad, when this very modus operandi launched Wargaming from backwater Belarus company into worldwide corporation and then this very model was copied in number of games, War Thunder and Armored Warfare being most notable non WG titles?

You don't achieve such success by making players happy, but by making them pay up under pretense of having fun.

Yeah, you're right, commercially it's efficient.
However I don't particularly like the concept of "profit is all that matters", not in games nor in any other aspect of life.
I would much prefer to run a small company with happy customers than a very large company which brings lot of anger and bad attitude towards me.
It's also what we teach our children ain't it?
Aren't all the christmas movies about not taking advantage of others and do things for the good of people rather than for greed or profit?

 

Anyway I understand why wargaming implemented this system, I just don't see why some players say it is good.
But system is this and I'll put up with it.
It's a shame though, because for some tech trees tier X is sooo much better than tier 9 ...

 

[Panocek]

24 minutes ago, Silfuin said:

It's a shame though, because for some tech trees tier X is sooo much better than tier 9 ...

Funny thing, in the old days hightier ships were MUCH more expensive to run, which actually had healthy effect on hightier gameplay quality, but WG in their short sighted greed painted themselves into a corner, which led to still ongoing tier 10 overpopulation. After all, why you would play anything else unless you were forced to?

 

And as you've noticed, you don't need skill or anything to get tier 10 and then supershits, you just need to be stubborn bashing wall against your head enough times to get there, thats why tier 10 is cesspool of worst players game has to offer.

[Silfuin]

1 minute ago, Panocek said:

Funny thing, in the old days hightier ships were MUCH more expensive to run, which actually had healthy effect on hightier gameplay quality, but WG in their short sighted greed painted themselves into a corner, which led to still ongoing tier 10 overpopulation. After all, why you would play anything else unless you were forced to?

 

And as you've noticed, you don't need skill or anything to get tier 10 and then supershits, you just need to be stubborn bashing wall against your head enough times to get there, thats why tier 10 is cesspool of worst players game has to offer.

Well ... thanks for implicitly saying to me that I'm part of the "cesspool of worst players" the game has to offer. No hard feelings attached .

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, Silfuin said:

Well ... thanks for implicitly saying to me that I'm part of the "cesspool of worst players" the game has to offer. No hard feelings attached .

I'll put this way: there's still risk of you learning thing or two the hard way, unlike someone who already clocked 15k+ battles and still reliably fails at basics... At least I want to have hope for that to happen.

[Silfuin]

I just remembered why I wanted to play high tier ships ... just finished a bunch of battles with tier 7 ships ... always paired against tier 9 ships, radars, planes ...
Yes, I can play passive and stay back ... which is evidently unfun, uneffective (because you don't accomplish anything), unhelpful to your teammates and draws a lot of bad comments and anger from them as well.
Not a good experience overall.

[Silfuin]

1 hour ago, Panocek said:

I'll put this way: there's still risk of you learning thing or two the hard way, unlike someone who already clocked 15k+ battles and still reliably fails at basics... At least I want to have hope for that to happen.

Well ... let's assume that I will not get any better.
Maybe it's because I don't play so much, maybe because I don't learn from my mistakes or maybe I'm just plain worse at this game, we can't be all the best right?
Is it so wrong for me to wish to play the best ships like you all do?

Fact that you are forced to play with poor players is not the fault of those players, nor is it restricted to tier 10,  it's a specific choice of wargaming, so I can't see why they would want to try and keep different skill levels apart if not for economic reasons.

You pointed the reasons yourself and what you said makes complete sense, however the consequence that less poor players play in the high tiers is not objectively a good thing.
It may be good for you who are a good player and wish to fight against good players, but it's equally bad for poor players which, if we consider bad players all those with less than 50% winrate, are actually half of the players base, more than that if you increase the winrate to consider one a good player.
So based strictly on the numbers of players whom this system benefits it's highly likely that it benefits less players than it disadvantages and therefore inherently bad.

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, Silfuin said:

Well ... let's assume that I will not get any better.
Maybe it's because I don't play so much, maybe because I don't learn from my mistakes or maybe I'm just plain worse at this game, we can't be all the best right?
Is it so wrong for me to wish to play the best ships like you all do?

We can flip this question around: when you consciously refuse to learn basics and improve yourself, even for sake of more efficient credit/exp gain to speed up grinds, what gives you right to spoil game for 11 other people in your team, especially at a tiers that (usually) requires quite a number of hours to get there? After all, it takes one destroyer yoloing and dying by 5min mark to collapse entire flank, due to lack of spotting and enemy DDs roaming unchecked.

 

1 hour ago, Silfuin said:

Fact that you are forced to play with poor players is not the fault of those players, nor is it restricted to tier 10,  it's a specific choice of wargaming, so I can't see why they would want to try and keep different skill levels apart if not for economic reasons.

You pointed the reasons yourself and what you said makes complete sense, however the consequence that less poor players play in the high tiers is not objectively a good thing.
It may be good for you who are a good player and wish to fight against good players, but it's equally bad for poor players which, if we consider bad players all those with less than 50% winrate, are actually half of the players base, more than that if you increase the winrate to consider one a good player.
So based strictly on the numbers of players whom this system benefits it's highly likely that it benefits less players than it disadvantages and therefore inherently bad.

No one stops "poor players" to accumulate credits by playing midtiers to afford their high tier voyages. Heck, game have quite a number of hightier, highly profitable premium ships for currencies you obtain for free, without spending a dime - Free Exp and Coal. Steel if you feel like dipping toes in Ranked or Clan battles, though these usually have ship requirements. Its all matter of spending time in the game.

 

Speaking of time, lets say you have a goal: get 50million credits to buy new ships. You can spend 100 hours failing your way through with Alaska and Groningen to achieve that goal, or you can spend 5-10h looking up how to play them more effectively and gradually start putting that knowledge into practice. Just like riding a bike for a first time, it won't be pretty, it won't be perfect, but with some effort you should be able to quickly notice improvements and suddenly goal of 50m credits probably will be achievable within 50 hours, saving you time to be spend elsewhere.

 

Not to mention getting at least vague understanding of game mechanics, playstyles etc probably will make game more fun to play, or at least would reduce number of "unfun" games where you're first to return to port without doing anything.

[Silfuin]

4 hours ago, Panocek said:

We can flip this question around: when you consciously refuse to learn basics and improve yourself, even for sake of more efficient credit/exp gain to speed up grinds, what gives you right to spoil game for 11 other people in your team, especially at a tiers that (usually) requires quite a number of hours to get there? After all, it takes one destroyer yoloing and dying by 5min mark to collapse entire flank, due to lack of spotting and enemy DDs roaming unchecked.

I wouldn't say I "consciously refuse to get better", I have just been honest about the time and effort I am willing to put into the game. I never refused to watch training videos or read guides, done that for all the ships I use.
You seem to think that poor players (which consitute at least half of the players base, remember, probably more) are idiots who find don't know what excitment into rushing forward and be destroyed in the first 5 mins or so.
But doesn't matter even if one refuse to improve, he's a player and has the right to play as any other (spoil the fun of teammates you say, which seems an exaggeration as even poor players can play good games and be among the best of their team at times).
What gives them the right to play? Wargaming does.
It was Wargaming that chose to mix players of all skill levels.
Nowhere is written "if you are not higher than xx% winrate you cannot play against good players" ... which isn't even what the credit system leads to, as even if poor players stick to tier IX they will play against good players anyway, either because good players also play lower tiers or because they get paired with tier X or *.
By design the game makes both good players and poor players unhappy, why blame the casual player for this?

 

4 hours ago, Panocek said:

No one stops "poor players" to accumulate credits by playing midtiers to afford their high tier voyages

That is what was suggested and I'm giving it a shot.
So far midtiers have been more frustrating than high tiers because of planes and being uptiered.

 

4 hours ago, Panocek said:

Speaking of time, lets say you have a goal: get 50million credits to buy new ships. You can spend 100 hours failing your way through with Alaska and Groningen to achieve that goal, or you can spend 5-10h looking up how to play them more effectively and gradually start putting that knowledge into practice. Just like riding a bike for a first time, it won't be pretty, it won't be perfect, but with some effort you should be able to quickly notice improvements and suddenly goal of 50m credits probably will be achievable within 50 hours, saving you time to be spend elsewhere.

This seems good advice and I'll search some material. However as already mentioned I've already spent those 5-10 hours watching videos and guides ... 

 

4 hours ago, Panocek said:

Not to mention getting at least vague understanding of game mechanics, playstyles etc probably will make game more fun to play, or at least would reduce number of "unfun" games where you're first to return to port without doing anything.

That surely true, but what makes you sure I don't already have at least a "vague understanding" of game mechanics and playstyles?
I think I have, maybe the problem is elsewhere, for example poor reflexes or inability to check the minimap.
Or maybe lack of knowledge of all the ships and their characteristics so that sometimes I get surprised by a radar which I didn't know was on a ship or other times I may use the wrong ammo because I have no idea that AP in that case could be much better than HE.
In my opinion this is not basic but advanced knowledge, and definitely cannot be acquired by playing and spending some hours looking some guide.
 

[Panocek]

7 hours ago, Silfuin said:

By design the game makes both good players and poor players unhappy, why blame the casual player for this?

Because it is easier to coerce "casual player" into at least trying to improve than WG to do changes.

 

7 hours ago, Silfuin said:

That surely true, but what makes you sure I don't already have at least a "vague understanding" of game mechanics and playstyles?
I think I have, maybe the problem is elsewhere, for example poor reflexes or inability to check the minimap.
Or maybe lack of knowledge of all the ships and their characteristics so that sometimes I get surprised by a radar which I didn't know was on a ship or other times I may use the wrong ammo because I have no idea that AP in that case could be much better than HE.
In my opinion this is not basic but advanced knowledge, and definitely cannot be acquired by playing and spending some hours looking some guide.

 

Game is extremely slow and only instances when "reflexes" are needed I can think of is when you've weaving your ship between multiple torpedo spreads and exchanging gunnery with owner of said torps.

 

Ability to read maps and "flow of battle" is extremely difficult one, both to quantify and to learn. I guess best attempt at that would be saving replays of battles you think you've did bad, or good and analyzing them with cool head what went wrong, what went good. Forum dwellers also can help when they have something to look at, otherwise not knowing anything how you play at best you're going to get generic advices.

 

For better or worse, WG standardized most ships, or your could say, most ships follow a template, so amount of things to learn isn't THAT high.

Spoiler

HE penetration: baseline is 1/6th of a caliber, CL of tier 8 and above have 1/5th of a caliber, 1/4th for Germans and UK BB/CA. Exception being IJN Akizuki line and Russian 180mm guns, as these have 30mm pen, same as hightier CL.

 

Majority of ships follow all-or-nothing armor scheme, exceptions past tier 6 being German, Russian and Italian battleships. Thus even small caliber AP is going to penetrate thin 16-38mm plating outside of citadel, so whenever broadside is available, even AP from destroyers should be adequate. Plating thickness also are standarized across tiers for overmatch purposes, though exceptions exists like Russian CA or Dutch cruisers.

Speaking of overmatch: sacred number is 14.3, so AP shell will overmatch plate that is thinnner than 14.3 of shell caliber. In layman terms: 203mm overmatches 13mm, 234mm overmatches 16mm, 280mm overmatches 19mm, 380mm overmatches 25mm, 406mm overmatches 27mm, 430mm overmatches 30mm, 460mm overmatches 32mm.

 

Radar: Russian CL/CA, American CL/CA, British CL, PanAsian destroyers from tier 8 onwards can equip it. Exceptions: Atlanta, Indianapolis, Black, Smaland, Ragnar

 

And all this info is available in game - armor viewer, expanded stat sheet showing HE/SAP pen, ship descriptions in the armory or in tech tree. Only thing requiring to look outside is overmatch info.