Invisi fire

[Albert_Poop_Decker]

I seem to have the wrong end of the stick wrt invisi fire. I thought the removal meant that if people shoot at me, I will see them, especially at short range. OK at long range, a better equipped ship may be able to shoot over the horizon esp if high humidity causing ducting on the radar etc. I can get that but at short range? It seems to me invisi fire is still alive and well.

 

I would have thought this universal so may be people experiencing this can point me in the right direction. I don't mean the detection ranges for a NC at 4Km.

 

Perhaps it is a problem just on my account? I know there is a problem there as I've seen hits not credited and zero scores. I mean zero every thing even with penetrating shells. I've been playing for 6 months now and I feel the game has gone down the tubes in that time.

 

I mean, what is fair about being hit by close range shells out of nowhere without any defence to reply?

 

I prefer British CA's but without HE I just make a colander and cause no damage wherever I aim.

 

Any advice would be most welcome.

[Aotearas]

It's still possible to shoot unspotted if no one in the range of the detection bloom has line of sight on you.

 

Say you're hiding behind and firing over an island, or are hidden in smoke.

[Albert_Poop_Decker]

I probably should hide. There is critisism of sniping although I see that as the BB's job. No one seems to want to gather and focus. Just when you think they are, they disperse. Usually run away.

 

Smoke and Islands are fine, I understand that. Line of sight I do not, esp. at short range, less than 4K. The only antidote to that is to get closer I know they are close by but can't see them.

Then come the torps and the end of my game. That close.

 

It seems to me that WG have taken the ticket of some other old games that invisible opponents in space games which were not successful in their day.

 

Line of sight is just that, if they can see you and lay down accurate fire, then you should see them.

 

I know that this is a game and not supposed to reflect real life. It is true including all those people who seem to think it is and witter on about all sorts of rl parameters which are ot simulated.

 

OK I understand that, people like to get Immersed, me too.

 

In my short experience in this game, I have seen it slide down to more arcade than it was when I started. Perhaps these changes mean that I have wasted money to revel in my icon ships.

 

I really enjoy those I have grinded for. They are the best models I have ever seen. So I can't leave the game.

 

I shall keep my distance in BB even if accused of sniping. I don't camp but I do see the situational sense in that. BB's and torps don't mix. Especially when you can't see them coming and any escort is on the other side of the map, or sunk.

 

Wrt DD's, I have no problem.

 

As regards my zero scores, if no one else has recieved them, I guess I've made an enemy of WE, but then, who hasn't. I don't mean just zero damage, I mean zero xp, zero credits etc.

 

It is annoying when I get hits that do not register even though I know they are my hits. I know they can be close to others fire, but I follow my own shots, all before a cataclysmic kill.

 

Well that is my winge over, maybe someone has experienced the same?

 

If not, I humbly withdraw and stick to DD's

 

[procrastinatingStudent]

DDs troping from smoke when you try to close? Sounds like you need the newest version of wasd.exe or just bow tank it if you feel really brave

[Aotearas]

I fail to see the problem here.

 

Any ship that you can't spot since you don't have line of sight on you, can conversely also not spot you by itself. Someone else has to spot you for them. That mechanics is hardly unrealistic either, indirect fire has been a common artillery techique by the timeframe this game is covering. Artillery had advanced past the stage of requiring a direct line of sight on their targets. All they needed was a line of fire and someone to provide target coordinates and their allied ships that do have a line of sight on you do just that.

 

And shooting undetected from 4km away, well ... they're in smoke. There is no other possibility for that. Smoke screens are hardly inconspicious. If you don't like getting shot at by an angry puff, you always have the option to put yurself in a position where it can't fire at you.

 

Or in case of you being as close as 4km, you can push into it. At 2km distance assured ship acquisition will spot the enemy ship, regardless of smoke or island cover. Then you can shoot back.

 

It's rather simple really and all boils down to where you are and where you go. Know the maps, the places where people like to smoke up and plan your movements so you can shield yourself from the most likely attack directions. Keep an eye on what ships the enemy has and where and you can decide whether to push into a smoke, retreat or weather the storm until the smoke runs out (at which point the enemy is either going to disengage by themselves, or be left vulnerable to you).

 

 

Frankly I can scarce believe it that even after the sledgehammer nerf to stealth mechanics like the recent detectability change, people are still complaining about invisi-firing.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

I've been playing for 6 months now and I feel the game has gone down the tubes in that time.

 

I mean, what is fair about being hit by close range shells out of nowhere without any defence to reply?

 

I prefer British CA's but without HE I just make a colander and cause no damage wherever I aim.

Any advice would be most welcome.

No disrespect, but 'Invisi fire' is the least of your problems.  

 

My advise would be to start over with some lower tier ships, watch some instruction videos, and read some forum threads on game play.

[JingoJaden]

One of the major problems for DD's now is that if they engage their guns, and their target goes behind an island. You may still keep getting spotted by a cruiser 13 kilometers away. It is incredibly bad news for American DD's. 

[AgarwaenME]

I probably should hide. There is critisism of sniping although I see that as the BB's job.

 

 

[Drug_Kartman]

Stay clear of these:

 

Or, alternatively, charge into them and flush the little bugger out... torp salvo into one of those works well also

[Vincinzerei]

I prefer British CA's but without HE I just make a colander and cause no damage wherever I aim.

 

You could start watching some You Tube Guides. There are Plenty ones for every ship in the game.

You could also share some replays for others to watch and maybe somebody will tell you where the mistake was for that special game..

[Albert_Poop_Decker]

Thanks for the information and advice. I shall keep this all in mind.

 

[SinkTheOthersNotMe]

1 Read WOWS wiki first.

2 Watch some unicum's videos to get a general idea.

3 Train in coop against bots.

 

If none of the above helps then you will serve as cannon fodder/shells magnet so that I shall deal damage while you are being sunk

(Note: In randoms at least 1/2 of the teams serve as shells magnets so do not feel insulted)

 

[bushwacker001]

I probably should hide. There is critisism of sniping although I see that as the BB's job. No one seems to want to gather and focus. Just when you think they are, they disperse. Usually run away.

 

Smoke and Islands are fine, I understand that. Line of sight I do not, esp. at short range, less than 4K. The only antidote to that is to get closer I know they are close by but can't see them.

Then come the torps and the end of my game. That close.

 

It seems to me that WG have taken the ticket of some other old games that invisible opponents in space games which were not successful in their day.

 

Line of sight is just that, if they can see you and lay down accurate fire, then you should see them.

 

I know that this is a game and not supposed to reflect real life. It is true including all those people who seem to think it is and witter on about all sorts of rl parameters which are ot simulated.

 

OK I understand that, people like to get Immersed, me too.

 

In my short experience in this game, I have seen it slide down to more arcade than it was when I started. Perhaps these changes mean that I have wasted money to revel in my icon ships.

 

I really enjoy those I have grinded for. They are the best models I have ever seen. So I can't leave the game.

 

I shall keep my distance in BB even if accused of sniping. I don't camp but I do see the situational sense in that. BB's and torps don't mix. Especially when you can't see them coming and any escort is on the other side of the map, or sunk.

 

Wrt DD's, I have no problem.

 

As regards my zero scores, if no one else has recieved them, I guess I've made an enemy of WE, but then, who hasn't. I don't mean just zero damage, I mean zero xp, zero credits etc.

 

It is annoying when I get hits that do not register even though I know they are my hits. I know they can be close to others fire, but I follow my own shots, all before a cataclysmic kill.

 

Well that is my winge over, maybe someone has experienced the same?

 

If not, I humbly withdraw and stick to DD's

 

 

This may feel harsh but all I can see is that you are playing high tiers with no clue how to play them....you have bought your way to tier ten without learning the previous tiers. You haven't even grinded many to the next tier especially from 7 up. I can not see how you can criticise and judge the game when you can hardly play it. Best thing to do is go in co-op and for the time being stay there for as long as it takes.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

I fail to see the problem here.

 

Any ship that you can't spot since you don't have line of sight on you, can conversely also not spot you by itself. Someone else has to spot you for them. That mechanics is hardly unrealistic either, indirect fire has been a common artillery techique by the timeframe this game is covering. Artillery had advanced past the stage of requiring a direct line of sight on their targets. All they needed was a line of fire and someone to provide target coordinates and their allied ships that do have a line of sight on you do just that.

 

And shooting undetected from 4km away, well ... they're in smoke. There is no other possibility for that. Smoke screens are hardly inconspicious. If you don't like getting shot at by an angry puff, you always have the option to put yurself in a position where it can't fire at you.

 

Or in case of you being as close as 4km, you can push into it. At 2km distance assured ship acquisition will spot the enemy ship, regardless of smoke or island cover. Then you can shoot back.

 

It's rather simple really and all boils down to where you are and where you go. Know the maps, the places where people like to smoke up and plan your movements so you can shield yourself from the most likely attack directions. Keep an eye on what ships the enemy has and where and you can decide whether to push into a smoke, retreat or weather the storm until the smoke runs out (at which point the enemy is either going to disengage by themselves, or be left vulnerable to you).

 

 

Frankly I can scarce believe it that even after the sledgehammer nerf to stealth mechanics like the recent detectability change, people are still complaining about invisi-firing.

 

Except the technology for the ability to do that did not exist until the late 70s/early 80 with the introduction of datalinks and accurate inertial navigation systems. The only way to shoot under limited visibility situations in the game's timeframe could only be done with radar controlled fire direction which only a few countries possesed at the time; it simply wasn't possible due to lack of technology to transfer data fast enough between ships and the ability to determine positional accurcy high enough for it to possible let feasible to even try. The mechanics are in the game for pure balance reasons which is OK I guess?

[Juanx]

 

Except the technology for the ability to do that did not exist until the late 70s/early 80 with the introduction of datalinks and accurate inertial navigation systems. The only way to shoot under limited visibility situations in the game's timeframe could only be done with radar controlled fire direction which only a few countries possesed at the time; it simply wasn't possible due to lack of technology to transfer data fast enough between ships and the ability to determine positional accurcy high enough for it to possible let feasible to even try. The mechanics are in the game for pure balance reasons which is OK I guess?

 

Dont tell that to WW1 artillery man, or teh ones manning the spotter balloons...

Man, ignorance, such an asset.

[Aotearas]

 

Dont tell that to WW1 artillery man, or teh ones manning the spotter balloons...

Man, ignorance, such an asset.

 

To be fair, atomskytten has a good point, there's a difference between firing from a stationary position into an equally stationary coordinates grid and firing from an unstable, moving platform at a manouvering target even though the concept is the same.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

 

Dont tell that to WW1 artillery man, or teh ones manning the spotter balloons...

Man, ignorance, such an asset.

 

There is a vast difference in using land based artillery and naval artillery in the WW1- 1950's whose differences I'll try to describe below while omitting detailed but nonetheless important factors such as ambient temperature, gun barrel wear, muzzle velocity, humidity, the various atmospheric pressures it passes through etc etc.

 

Land based artillery:

In landbased artillery all you have to know is the position of the guns, the positions of the target, a map and the calculation and firing tables/fire control computers and you are good to go. This can be done observed, either by the artillery battery itself or by an artillery observer, such as one sitting in an oberservation baloon or unobserved using only the map coordinates as a target reference.

Shooting at moving targets was only employed against larger formations and is nothing more than shooing at the coordinates the enemy is expected to be at x time in the future and as calculations took about 1-2 minutes depending on the time availble fire control technology there were no such thing as rapidly shifting fires if the target made unexpected turns or change in displacement speed. It was only in the 1960's with the introduction of proper fire control computeres that land based artillery could employ effective fire against platoon and section sized moving targets as it wasn't untill then that it was possible to recalculate the firing solution fast enough.

 

Naval artillery:

Naval artillery on the other hand requires a few more parameters in order to hit their targets. If using self observed fire against stationary targets the artillery has to have own speed and heading(if any), bearing to target and range.

If using an artillery observer, or indirect, fire against a stationary target the artillery director requires own ship position, speed and heading(if any), bearing and range to target from the observers point of view and own bearing and range to the spotter so that the bearing and range to the target can be calculated, in order to calculate a firing solution.

 

If the target or own ship is obscured by fog, smoke or rainsqualls or when employing indirect fire by use of an artillery observer against a stationary target, then the ships own position needs to be determined down to no more than a 1000meter/yards accuracy if area targets are to be engaged, such as town or cities and no more than 100 m/yards against point targets, if employing a fire by map method the same positional accuracy applies.

 

If using self observed/directed fire against moving targets the artillery director requires the following data: Own ships heading and speed, bearing to target, range, the targets heading so that range and bearing rates can be be calculated. This requires multiple range and bearing taking that is then input into the fire control table or fire control computer. In the case of a ship having a fire control radar the same apply only that it add more data points over time thus giving a higher degree of accuracy and precision when calculating bearing and range rates than through optical rangefinders alone.

if employing observer directed fire against a moving targets then in addition to having the bearing and range to the observer the range and bearing to the target from the observers point of view is also required. Until the introduction of sea and airborne radar if the spotter plane/baloon could not observe or be observed from the friendly ship there were no way to determine the range and bearing from the friendly ship to the target thus indirect fire against an enemy ship could not take place. Before wireless technology with plainspeech phones was introduced either air dropped handwritten messages or morse code was used as means of communication between observer and ship with obvious limitations and delays in collecting the raw data till they reached the artillery directors on the friendly ship. When radar was introduced the problem was that the information could not be transmitted fast enough to the fire control computers because the data had to be transferred by radio from observer to the radioroom on the ship and from there to the transmitting station to be entered in the fire control table/computer. The time from the raw data was collected to the time it was entered in the fire control table/computer was simply too long for it to make it practical or even theoretical possible to use indirect fire against moving targets at sea.

 

In a fluid battle such as a naval battle is before the advent of datalink technology it simply wasn't possible or feasible to try to employ indirect naval gunfire against moving targets because of the date received from the observer was obsolete and worthless when they reached the artillery director.

 

Naval artillery is an insanely complicated subject which in the end, even today, is more or less a matter of random chance if the shells hit a moving target where the most accurate firing solutions will get those few more hits connecting that will win the engagement.

[Prospect_b]

 

Any advice would be most welcome.

 

Ahoy,

 

I remember you asking advice a while ago. I remember many people (including me) advising you to play more lower tiers (4 through 7 for example) before rushing to the higher levels. Since then you reached the minotaur, and, no offense, you can't be happy with the games you play with her, can you? So I'd advice the same to be honest.

 

Regarding invisifire. Do you know you can enable replays of your games? This gives a little file in your wow\replays folder that you can share with anyone. If you have a game in which you encounter invisifiring or other mechanics you don't immediately understand, you can share the file with us, and we can try to explain what happens. As you describe it quite vaguely, it can be numerous things, as said above.

 

I like that you keep asking advice at least. If people say "play lower tiers/coop" that isn't to insult you. It would give you more time to understand the game, that's all, higher tiers are much more complicated regarding positioning, radar (even on freaking bb), longer/better torps, etc. And t9/10 games are boring campfests anyway. (Not to say the tiers below can't be like that as well, but yea...)

 

[Albert_Poop_Decker]

 

Ahoy,

 

I remember you asking advice a while ago. I remember many people (including me) advising you to play more lower tiers (4 through 7 for example) before rushing to the higher levels. Since then you reached the minotaur, and, no offense, you can't be happy with the games you play with her, can you? So I'd advice the same to be honest.

 

Regarding invisifire. Do you know you can enable replays of your games? This gives a little file in your wow\replays folder that you can share with anyone. If you have a game in which you encounter invisifiring or other mechanics you don't immediately understand, you can share the file with us, and we can try to explain what happens. As you describe it quite vaguely, it can be numerous things, as said above.

 

I like that you keep asking advice at least. If people say "play lower tiers/coop" that isn't to insult you. It would give you more time to understand the game, that's all, higher tiers are much more complicated regarding positioning, radar (even on freaking bb), longer/better torps, etc. And t9/10 games are boring campfests anyway. (Not to say the tiers below can't be like that as well, but yea...)

 

 

At that time, I was too involved with the ranking game. I managed to reach T10 and that was it. Ended up as T12. I learned a lot from the ranking games.

 

I have indeed played some some lower tier games in my Cambletown and Emerald. But I still like to grind and play my higher tiers also.

 

My Black Swan is too easy although I could probably boost my WR with it maybe.

 

I have looked at the training and info video's but a lot of info to take in at once so concentrate on the info for the particular ship I'm using.

 

I left the RN in '73 and there was no gunnery spotting going on then from other ships. Position,(Range and bearing from spotter) speed and course was about it. Nothing compared to the accurate fire that hits me from over the horizon in the game. The predictor needed lock to fire esp. at aircraft. even during the Falklands. The director chats to the predictor also for a shoot but the only other directions I heard of for spotting were verbal. I have no doubt that data-links can do it all under processing power now but I don't know how accurate it is on an uncooperative target.

 

I did grind through the tech trees as well as buy some premiums. I had to sell some as I went so I could afford to progress.

 

I shall probably sell a couple of the russian and Japanese which I only bought to get my red rooster flag.

 

I heed the advice given but I will still play my higher tier ships also. I have had some good scores as well as bad ones.

 

The difficulty I find is that the video instruction is often under ideal conditions and not allways possible to implement during the game.

 

I shall google the replay thing but I'm not sure how that will affect my ping as I only have less than 1 Mb broadband speed. Fraps has been useful in the past, I guess I couold try that again.

 

Thanks again for help.

[Aotearas]

 

I shall google the replay thing but I'm not sure how that will affect my ping as I only have less than 1 Mb broadband speed. Fraps has been useful in the past, I guess I couold try that again.

 

 

Afaik the replays are just files made by the game after the match ended and saved to your folder. Nothing that should stress your internet connection ingame and with around ~2MB per replayfile not much of a data hog overall.

 

Fraps or other recording software that runs parallel to the game and recording in realtime is going to stress your PC a lot more.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

 

...I heed the advice given but...

 My opinion/advise.

 

                       Games        WR           DMG         Kills       Survive         MBH         TH
Farragut    6    20              40.00%    8,817          0.0           0%              30%          6%    
Benson     8    18              38.89%     6,303          0.2          11%              24%         5%    
Fletcher    9    17               29.41%    7,103          0.1          18%              26%          4%    

Your damage is extremely low.
Your kills are well below average (20 games in Farragut with an average of zero kills)
Survive is low... you die to often.
Main battery hit rate is about 66% of average.
Torpedo hit rate is below average.

 

It looks like your die early and often in battles, because you do not  grasp the fundamentals of playing US DDs. My recommendation: get the Clemson Tier 4 DD (fully upgraded) and play it a lot.  Learn the feel of this ships so that it become second nature...until you are able to grasp the fundamentals.  Why the Clemson? A very good US DD in a protect MM teir.... it can only be uptiered by +1. 

 

Stop dying.  The initial battle for caps is just that... a battle, but it isn't the war.  In general, the longer you last in the game the stronger you get. 

[Prospect_b]

 

I shall google the replay thing but I'm not sure how that will affect my ping as I only have less than 1 Mb broadband speed. Fraps has been useful in the past, I guess I couold try that again.

 

To activate the replay, see this post: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/19170-enabling-wows-replays/

 

And it doesn't affect ping at all.

[Albert_Poop_Decker]

 My opinion/advise.

 

                       Games        WR           DMG         Kills       Survive         MBH         TH
Farragut    6    20              40.00%    8,817          0.0           0%              30%          6%    
Benson     8    18              38.89%     6,303          0.2          11%              24%         5%    
Fletcher    9    17               29.41%    7,103          0.1          18%              26%          4%    

Your damage is extremely low.
Your kills are well below average (20 games in Farragut with an average of zero kills)
Survive is low... you die to often.
Main battery hit rate is about 66% of average.
Torpedo hit rate is below average.

 

It looks like your die early and often in battles, because you do not  grasp the fundamentals of playing US DDs. My recommendation: get the Clemson Tier 4 DD (fully upgraded) and play it a lot.  Learn the feel of this ships so that it become second nature...until you are able to grasp the fundamentals.  Why the Clemson? A very good US DD in a protect MM teir.... it can only be uptiered by +1. 

 

Stop dying.  The initial battle for caps is just that... a battle, but it isn't the war.  In general, the longer you last in the game the stronger you get. 

 

Yes you are right, I know I should stop dying. But please check those ships you have quoted, As you can see, I have not played many games with them. I've just got the Fletcher a little while ago and the Faragut I bought and sold when I started playing. I have recently bought her again to have a bash at lower tiers as advised. Not played her again yet though. Benson, I went off of her when I found she was sold to Taiwan and changed her name to Lo Yang.

I have 43 ships at this moment in time. Unfortunately, they will all appear on my stats even though I only played 1 or a few of them. I can't delete my experiments so they are included even if I don't have them anymore.

 

This is why I don't think the stats give the whole story.

 

I guess my play style is a bit old fashioned. I usually ask for instructions as regards the preferred cap or pair of caps. This is fine If the answer comes in time before the commencement of the game. Often I find that there is no decision and I make my way as fast as I can, while the rest collide and keep changing their minds.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I obey the last order (if there is one) and hightail it for the cap. I usually manage to get smoke down and then have to fight for the cap and often don't make it into the smoke before I'm sunk.

Then I see that those who appeared to be heading to the cap with me are for some reason on the other side of the map also getting picked of by an organised opposing team. No one using my smoke.

 

 At any time I see a DD going for CAP I feel I have to support them. I have seen so many opposing teams so well coordinated. OK, a few clans but they must be in communication, through chat, to carry out such good tactical play.

 

All I see on chat is a lot of focus fire instructions but hardly ever been in a position to oblige.

 

I would really love to take my BB in line astern to blow through a few caps and cross a few T's.

 

Few seem to realise the importance of caps and seem bent on eliminating the opposition who do appreciate the importance.

 

I am not alone on torp hit rates as far as I can see, although I've had more luck recently.

 

As far as I can see, those who have orgnised themselves are going to win.

 

I love the Minotaur. As I get to learn her ways, the better I get with her.

 

DD's, things have changed so I have to try again.

 

The point is you can go through my random, coop and ranked stats and pick out those which will indicate whatever you want them to, unless I'm unaware of any other magic.

What I don't understand is the winning or losing streakes. No matter how well you do in a battle, you can't win unless you change the ship you are playing. Even then it is not guaranteed.

 

I shall give the Clemson a go, sounds fun. Many thanks.

[Sidian42]

I have 43 ships at this moment in time. Unfortunately, they will all appear on my stats even though I only played 1 or a few of them. I can't delete my experiments so they are included even if I don't have them anymore.

 

But that is the point. Low tier ships shouldn't be an "experiment". They are for learning how to play the game, learning how to play the ship class, learning how to play a certain ship class of a certain nation,

You skipped that learning phase completly and bought high tier premium ships. Because most other players didn't skip the lower tiers, they have way more experience than you do, and therefore they are doing just better. In addition, you used the (few) experience points you earned with the premium ships to skip more of the learning phase and get in battles with other players dominating you constantly.

 

I mean... for example, your average damage per match in your Prinz Eugen and Fiji is 6.3k and 7.8k. That is less than you could do in one single salvo if you knew how to aim correctly.

 

 

That is why people urge you to play low tier ships. You will have an easier time learning the mechanics of the game there since others players are often also less experienced at lower tiers, and the power level and difficulty of low tier ships is also not as high as it is on higher tiers.

 

What also helps with the learning progress is watching videos of game mechanics. Way easier than reading and finding our for yourself. Take a look at this playlist:

These videos helped me a lot understanding the game's mechanics.

My advise is to watch them all, but the most important ones for you are probably these:

+ the "how to <ship class>" videos. But as i said, i suggest to watch them all, that will help you to learn how to improve yourself by a lot. 

 

This may also be handy:

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/14258-basics-spotting-mechanics/

[Culiacan_Mexico]

...But please check those ships you have quoted, As you can see, I have not played many games with them...

I  understand.  

 

When I started (first +700 game), I was having fun but doing rather poorly.... overall a 43% win rate.  So I sought out help by reading the forum and watching videos, to gave me some insight on how to improve my performance.  

 

It was on the forum that I found what turned out to be the key for me.  Another poster was having similar difficulties and someone offered very long, very rational, polite, well thought out advise on how they could improve their game play.  What I read and took to heart was a much more succinct reply: "You suck, you fail from one ships to the next and never learn to actually play them".  The poster never actually used these words or tone, but this was my exact problem.  So I started over and just played two ships US DD Wickes and the Japanese CA Kuma until I understood what they meant to me; then I moved on to the Wakatake, Clemson, Phoenix, etc.  

 

For instance, when I first ground through the Wickes I found it to be a rather unremarkable ships; but when I went back through it... I found it to be an incredible knife fighting torpedo boat, able to release waves of torpedoes that are absolutely deadly to a lone BBs in the right circumstances.

 

My point.  What worked for me was to limit the number/types of ships I played at anyone time until I could get a handle on their unique game play.  This worked for me, it may not work for you.

 

Good luck