CybrSlydr

No, I absolutely hate bow tankers and actively avoid doing it myself.

Or, don't bow tank, and learn how to steer your dang ship. Bow tanking is one of the most hideous and heinous things people can do and it ruins the gameplay. There are few things in this game more revolting and infuriating than watching some turd nose into the battle and sit there shooting or reversing. Absolutely unforgivable and I'd TK them every time if I could.

For long range fire against BBs, I typically use HE and try to duck in and around islands/cover to prevent incoming fire from getting me. Once I close to about 10km, always paying attention to where you're positioning, is when I'd switch over AP. Against Cruisers, AP almost all the time regardless of distance - though the closer you let them get, the better chance you'll have at getting citadels. Make sure you're good at leading your target as gunnery in the Alaska is critical to be effective and not get sent to port early. Against DDs, HE almost all the time. AP will give you 99% overpens and salt. Positioning-wise, at the beginning I like to cut across map just to give everyone else a chance to figure out where they're going so I'm not caught out all alone. Once you pick a direction, stay near a BB and a few cruisers for support - never get caught alone. Also, if you're facing another ship and you can hit them with your rear turret, you're angled too far. To prevent most of those pesky citadels from the front, you have to be angled enough that you can't use your rear turret a lot of the time. NEVER, EVER, EVER sail broadside to the current fight at any time unless you're turning to change direction. Always sail to/away from it at an angle. You're just begging to git Citadeled - made that mistake with 30k hp against a Kurfurst. I was sailing towards a battle and he came out from behind an island and I couldn't turn away fast enough to cover my citadel.

I've been playing mine like a Scharnhorst. Targets of opportunity and tagging along with others. I hit a Nelson for a Citadel from about 12k last match. Got two citadels on another Alaska as well. Just wish I had torps. lol

I only have 3 games in mine so far but I am enjoying it. Had a 79k game, best so far. Feels faster and maneuvers better than I anticipated.

Good stuff, thanks folks.

I've not played in a while - are CVs more or less prevalent warranting BFT and AFT? Concealment expert?

Always thought it was a nice touch in Silent Hunter when you sunk a ship they had crew out in lifeboats.

The idea is to add variety/complexity/strategy. Something other than, "click, click, BOOM". I was initially torn on the DC crews not taking damage - but I thought if I was going to introduce losing efficiency in other areas, one area that you wouldn't want to lose it is in the DC crews. I rationalize it this way - when your ship is taking damage and it's survival depends upon it's sea-worthiness, the #1 priority of a ship commander would be keeping the thing afloat. With that rationale in mind, I would take crew from other functions and assign them to DC as the highest priority. This is why I said DC crews would not lose efficiency. With the gun mechanic, I don't see any reason why it would affect all the turrets if one is hit. You can already fire the turrets asynchronously. So you have 4 turrets and one takes a big hit - the other 3 can fire normally, the hurt one is the one that gets the reload penalty. As for crew affecting performance - War Thunder manages to do it quite well without affecting the player base. They have other issues - some not so dissimilar to Wargaming...

Well, the idea is to either adapt or die - same choice they have now. As for what WG is going to be "all over", the CV rework shows they don't care what happens in the community player-base wise. They're willing to do something stupid like that, there's no reason they couldn't implement what I'm talking about. Besides, you're not accounting for the people this would appeal to and draw in - people who look at the arcade mess this game currently is and now they say, "Hey - this sounds challenging and fun - I'll give it a go".

I would certainly be amenable to the re-balancing of in-game actions involve how much reward. Tanking damage gets you extra credits, partaking in the battle gets you extra credits, etc. Balance those rewards so that being a passive player is not rewarded nor sustainable on a F2P basis.

Then wouldn't this encourage the exodus of bad players? If they had poor stats and earned less ribbons, in-game currency and the like, they wouldn't they stop playing?

Then if that's the case, then by your own logic, these mechanics wouldn't make the game worse off than it is now if "Players are going to play how they play".

I thought that ribbons, credits, stats, and the like were the rewards? That hasn't changed. Imagine that - that there's a risk involved in combat. Incredible concept there, Lert. -thumbs up-