Leander - a definate keeper!

[HotshotJimmy]

Leander has become my favourite ship. She's very strong when you get the hang of her. She's also one of the most beautiful ships in the game, in my humble opinion.

 

With the Ajax camo she is definately one fine ship. No Neptune in its camo though.

[trrprrprr]

After more games playing with it i have to agree, it performs very good. On average it performs alot better than shitty Gneisenau(i hate this crap of a BB) Even tho, Leanders range is very shitty, i have 8.8km conseal and WTF ambush other cruisers and DDs(when i get spotted at 8.8km range, just pop a hydro and DD is dead )  Hope Fiji is better, bcos all FIji players ive seen havnt showed me how good it is, Fijis are the first to get cit/killed.... so i really do hope those ones where a huge noobs.

[VC381]

Fiji recipe:

 

Take Leander, add 50% more firepower and make her insanely agile (turns tighter than Omaha, oh yes!). Sprinkle a bit more HP, gun range and generally slight improvement in all other stats (except concealment but only a small loss). Then bake her in more or less the same MM bracket, top tier most of the time.

 

"Monster" does not begin to describe that ship...

[RUSSIANBlAS]

Yes, Leander is good but Fiji is even better. 

 

Only Edinburgh puts me off climbing higher as it gets good again at Neptune.

[HotshotJimmy]

Yes, Leander is good but Fiji is even better. 

 

Only Edinburgh puts me off climbing higher as it gets good again at Neptune.

 

Ye it is a good ship but because it is not an improvement on the Fiji it seems worse due to the matchmaking too, kind of a double whamy making it seem worse.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

 

Ye it is a good ship but because it is not an improvement on the Fiji it seems worse due to the matchmaking too, kind of a double whamy making it seem worse.

 

Well it has Radar... But yeah, being sucked into T10 games.

 

T7 is the place to be currently with a lot of ships.

 

At least only a 10 point captain is needed to make RN Cruisers rock so I'll likely keep Fiji and train a new Edinburgh/high tier one.

[CPL_Sivi]

Iam wierd in a way since i loved emerald, not loved leander but i worship fiji. So much stronger than leander gunwise. More accurate, more powerfull, lands 10k salvos on tirpitz or colorado. U are floating citadel so u must take care of fiji. She will reward u back, no doubts about that.

[Listy]

My biggest problem at the moment seems to be my team mates, I keep getting games like this one:

 

And my WR for the last week is a whopping 35%. Now I know about the whole "What's the common factor in all your games, its YOU!" argument, and I agree. But I'm not entirely sure what I can do better to win. It seems that my team just collapses at the first sign of the enemy.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

My biggest problem at the moment seems to be my team mates, I keep getting games like this one:

 

And my WR for the last week is a whopping 35%. Now I know about the whole "What's the common factor in all your games, its YOU!" argument, and I agree. But I'm not entirely sure what I can do better to win. It seems that my team just collapses at the first sign of the enemy.

 

Two famous shipwrecks - one nurse the common factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Jessop

That argument you posted is invalid as it can be as it has the flawed logic that a player is immune to chaos, entropy and random events; thus being able to exert absolute control over the events they find themselves in all the time. No one has that power. Now the negative influence a player can exert on the outcome of the battle will always be greater than the positive one, as it takes more work and energy to turn chaos into order by reducing the batlle entropy the negative players causes than causing chaos and the increase of entropy. Entropy being the same as chaos and can be players doing some irrationel, unexpected or comepletely random actions that places their team in an unfavourable position; DDs being just outside the objectives and spamming torps or hunting for enemy CVs instead of helping the team scout for enemy DDs for example.

 

On the other if a player has a winning streak is that very statement used as an argument for showing how good a player is performing?

No it isn't because we all know that a single person can not win teambased games singlehandedly against the full enemy team and that player influence on the battle/game is determined by the enemy's and the player's team's actions. If a single player had so much influence on a battle that they could singlehandedly win against a full enemy team in any game or battle that person would be a god and not a man. Thus winning streaks are also the result of chaos and entropy, rather in this instance the chaos and entropy the enemy team is experiencing, due to the bad decisions the enemy players, is just larger than the player's meaning that the amount of work the player is putting into the game has a larger effect and influence on the game's or battle's outcome than if the player was on a team filled with lesser performing players than him or herself.

 

In short: if there are too great a number of bad and below players or extraordinary bad or destructive players on a team it will not be possible for even the best players to affect a positiv outcome of the game thus making the age old statement about the common factor completely invaild.

 

[HotshotJimmy]

 

Two famous shipwrecks - one nurse the common factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Jessop

That argument you posted is invalid as it can be as it has the flawed logic that a player is immune to chaos, entropy and random events; thus being able to exert absolute control over the events they find themselves in all the time. No one has that power. Now the negative influence a player can exert on the outcome of the battle will always be greater than the positive one, as it takes more work and energy to turn chaos into order by reducing the batlle entropy the negative players causes than causing chaos and the increase of entropy. Entropy being the same as chaos and can be players doing some irrationel, unexpected or comepletely random actions that places their team in an unfavourable position; DDs being just outside the objectives and spamming torps or hunting for enemy CVs instead of helping the team scout for enemy DDs for example.

 

On the other if a player has a winning streak is that very statement used as an argument for showing how good a player is performing?

No it isn't because we all know that a single person can not win teambased games singlehandedly against the full enemy team and that player influence on the battle/game is determined by the enemy's and the player's team's actions. If a single player had so much influence on a battle that they could singlehandedly win against a full enemy team in any game or battle that person would be a god and not a man. Thus winning streaks are also the result of chaos and entropy, rather in this instance the chaos and entropy the enemy team is experiencing, due to the bad decisions the enemy players, is just larger than the player's meaning that the amount of work the player is putting into the game has a larger effect and influence on the game's or battle's outcome than if the player was on a team filled with lesser performing players than him or herself.

 

In short: if there are too great a number of bad and below players or extraordinary bad or destructive players on a team it will not be possible for even the best players to affect a positiv outcome of the game thus making the age old statement about the common factor completely invaild.

 

 

Everyday is a learning day haha. Didn't know about the nurse and yup random battles are "random".

[Commodore_Goodenough]

I still often take my Leander out since graduation to the Fiji. Both are very rewarding and fun to play, completely agree with their praises being sung here. Working up the RN cruiser line and stepping from the Emerald to Leander is like poking at a leafy salad until the waiter comes and garnishes it with a steak.

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

 

In short: if you can learn to play its strengths and play the objective this is a very strong ship more than capable of performing that purpose as well as acting as a team scout if no DDs are in the game, which happens from time to time, due to its good camo rating however it is not for the inexperienced or hesitant players as this ship requires the player to be bold and able to read the tactical situation and react appropiately and effeciently as possible to developing situations and changing enviroments in order maximize and exploit its very high damage potential while also staying alive. If the player is hesitant, too passive or incapable of understanding the tactical situation and what the correct repsonse to it is the ship will simply be a liability for the team which would better have been replaced by any other CL of the same tier which can use HE with greater range.

 

Verdict: Research and acquire this ship for it is a very pleassurable ship to play when the player have mastered the Royal Navy CL way to do business

 

The praise is a bit delayed ...but ....

This is one of the most insightful and accurate summaries that I can remember reading about ANY ship!

 

It also explains perfectly my own struggles with the RN cruiser line ("....however it is not for the inexperienced or hesitant players as this ship requires the player to be bold and able to read the tactical situation and react appropiately and effeciently as possible to developing situations and changing enviroments in order maximize and exploit its very high damage potential while also staying alive.  ")

 

I guess that I am just too cautious after being deleted so many times in cruisers. Whenever I try to be bold, my life expectancy can be measured in seconds rather than minutes.

Fortunately, at tier 6, is the Budyonny - which I like a lot - though I do believe that a good player will get better overall results in a Leander than they will in a Budyonny.

 

I guess that this is all down to the high-skill ceiling factor. Players WITH high skills get rewarded more, but players WITHOUT the skills get punished more in these kinds of ships.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

 

The praise is a bit delayed ...but ....

This is one of the most insightful and accurate summaries that I can remember reading about ANY ship!

 

It also explains perfectly my own struggles with the RN cruiser line ("....however it is not for the inexperienced or hesitant players as this ship requires the player to be bold and able to read the tactical situation and react appropiately and effeciently as possible to developing situations and changing enviroments in order maximize and exploit its very high damage potential while also staying alive.  ")

 

I guess that I am just too cautious after being deleted so many times in cruisers. Whenever I try to be bold, my life expectancy can be measured in seconds rather than minutes.

Fortunately, at tier 6, is the Budyonny - which I like a lot - though I do believe that a good player will get better overall results in a Leander than they will in a Budyonny.

 

I guess that this is all down to the high-skill ceiling factor. Players WITH high skills get rewarded more, but players WITHOUT the skills get punished more in these kinds of ships.

 

The ship can be played without Camouflage Expert but become far more effective with 8.8km detection range however it is one of those ships that require "Fingerspitzgefühl" as they say in Germany and it is hard to explain how to exactly play it to its maximum potential and only experience will really let you know if you do so.