Special_Kay

So it looks like the season bonuses give a total of 150 extra BPP per season. That does not translate to a lot of coal for the price tag, which is a shame because I am specifically interested in trading dollars for coal. Kinda scummy to not even publish how much BPP is in those missions until you pay for them.

Repair Party is the normal one, basically it gives ½% of max HP per second for 28 seconds. Specialized Repair Teams is what people call a superheal, it gives 2% of max HP per second for 20 seconds. Note well, many ships have different rules for which percent of which damage types are reparable, so the actual value may vary greatly. Exceptions exist, notably the RN DDs have a "Repair Party" which yields 1% x 10 seconds. Edit to add, a full treatment exists on the wiki at https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables#Repair_Party

Sounds good, thanks for the heads up, Mouse!

Consistent engine heating across different aircraft-payload combinations is not an obvious or natural state of affairs. Thus the burden of justification is not, as you imply, on the status quo. At a minimum you need to show why changing values for consistency is not deleterious to game balance. Beyond that, most of us expect to hear a better reason for why it would be an improvement over the current state of affairs, because most of us find it intuitively acceptable that a squadron with a different aircraft-payload combination would not have the same engine performance profile.

Did someone say fire chances!? Yeah, it's a non-trivial bit of math to find your true fire chance against a specific target. Once you've done that, though, there's some further analysis that can tell you the actual value of a change in your fire chance. This is all from my 2016 thread, "How to quantify the effect of fire chance modification." let n be the number of hits let w(n) be fire chance after n shells: w(n) = 1 - (1-f)n Example for actual fire chance of 10% per shell Don't ask why that percentage chance graph goes up to 120. Skipping the mathematical justification here, we manipulate this relationship to find λ, the decay rate of the exponential function hiding in the graph above, then that leads to n̄, the average number of hits required to set a ship section on fire, given all the values @Your_SAT_Score explained above. The formula for n̄ isn̄ = -ln[(1-f)]-1 This enables you to find different fire chances representing different commander builds for your ship, then turn them into a change in the average number of shells you'll need to start fires. Then you can think about your reload speed, expected accuracy, and a bunch of other factors and decide for yourself how much actual difference you think you'll get out of your skills and signals for a given ship. I go into these concepts in more depth in the thread, for all two of you who are still reading this post. For the rest, here's a neat graph to skim past! In conclusion, just take fire prevention, because in spite of all that I just said, the merging of your two middle nodes is a way bigger deal than any of this math will ever be.

This is the worst part. It's given everyone a sort of playtime quota for the week which they do solo, then go dark until next week. Not since the CV rework have I seen such a big drop-off in clanmate random battle division prospects.

For similar total rounds per minute, more guns and longer reload is always better. At least in the hands of a good player. If you are skilled and alert enough to be keeping an eye on every ship that can potentially blap you, you can take advantage of their reload cycles or the times their turrets traverse away from you, and unmask your own turrets. When you're employing Buffalo stop thinking about Baltimore and think more about Brindisi. Smoke aside, It benefits from the same sort of manoeuvres. The difference is that while RM CA SAP throws out constant and consistent damage, Buffalo has the SHS AP penetration and ricochet angles to get some seriously devastating hits once in a while. When you're not doing that, you're trying to set up pop-outs and corner ambushes against other large ships where your huge alpha strike can win you the upper hand. You want to take calculated risks where your vulnerability window is as brief as possible, because Buffalo only needs half a second to put 12 shells into something. These are things that Des Moines could do as well, and if it didn't have autoloaders it would make a lot of sense. But spending a minute and a half setting up, executing, and recovering a "gotcha" with a Des Moines is often only 9 shells instead of 12 (unless your target is at anchor, or fat and slow), and unlike Buffalo, Des Moines gives up a lot of potential chip damage to accomplish that. And even though it's more worth your while in a Baltimore because you don't have autoloaders like a DM, you're still only rocking 9 shells—if you did more than spam mediocrity from bow-in and at anchor in your Baltimore grind, you should already have this skill in your toolbox, and now you get 33% more shells when you do it in Buffalo. Could you massage soft stats for Buffalo and Baltimore to justify swapping their tiers? Yeah. Is Buffalo objectively worse than the other T9 heavy cruisers? No. Is a Buffalo played like a Des Moines worse than the other T9 heavy cruisers? Yeah. @iDuckman hit it on the head; Buffalo is a different playstyle than New Orleans, Baltimore, or Des Moines.

Well in that case... Shikishima would render your ARP Yamato purchase wasteful. For a non-pro CV player, FDR is a luxury port queen which you lack the steel wealth to justify. And Plymouth is still Plymouth. Buy a Somers! I am completely biased towards it, but it's the Shimakaze you can love if you don't love your Shimakaze. Did I mention it literally lays the longest smoke in the game? Speed signal and special smoke module and engine boost, all taken together, lay down roughly 6km of smoke if you start at top speed and continue in a straight line. But really, you could easily justify just sitting on your steel and waiting.

Somers is basically a more agile Shimakaze with functionally better torpedoes. There are a few niches where Shimakaze is a better ship for the purpose, especially where it comes to striking at stationary battleships. But Somers will have torpedoes going out more often, they're a better combination of hard to spot and adequately ranged than any of Shimakaze's three options, and it is far better at avoiding damage if you're highly skilled at actively dodging. Shikishima is superior to Yamato, according to detailed discussions I've had with excellent players who own her. They say the main battery performs better and the armour is somewhat more effective if you play it with detailed game mechanics knowledge. FDR is unique and interesting, and I too am eager to own the ship despite being weaker in carriers and unlikely to play with it much. However, it requires an enormous amount of patience and map reading skill, and every single bad decision you make is far more costly than in any other carrier. The new light cruiser Plymouth is not at all an appealing selection at this time, as the tradeoffs it offers versus Minotaur are the exact opposite of the ones that would make a well-played Minotaur better—if she got HE shells or something else significant, I would be compelled to make a second weighing of those tradeoffs. Frankly, the best thing you can do to make your Minotaur better is to stop taking smoke on her, and learn to open water weave. The agility is second to none, and you're easier to sink sitting still firing from smoke than being lit to all, moving erratically—instead, Plymouth lets you keep the smoke while getting a worse radar, in exchange for handicaps elsewhere. Master open water Minotaur and you get to have better radar, DPM and AA than a Plymouth, and survive better than if you tried to T10 Belfast in a ship that gets overmatched by everything with a calibre greater than 9". In all honesty, none of these ships sound like they're worth a year of steel in your case. Better to divert steel for Thunderer or Georgia while you still can.

I also choose this man's dodging teammates.

Well, losses are better than wins for certain grinds. Top damage contests/credit grinds most notably, and potential damage would probably be another. Anything where you care about maximizing your contact with the enemy and not about XP, really. Now obviously a quick match is worse than a long one win or lose. but generally you don't want to be in a position where the better you do, the shorter your match gets. Hence hard carries and drawn-out losses are ideal for the purpose.

The worst part is how the boosts have time value, so you're pressured to spend at least $25 up front just to keep the option open to grind out the ship, before you know your work schedule or family schedule or any of that. That's where this crosses the line from over-priced into exploitative.

If base concealment is 11.2km and full concealment build is 9.7km, does that mean Bedford cannot mount the concealment module despite meeting the tier requirement for slot 5?

Bridge sits on a literal castle Hardest to spot CA at-tier As far as enormous ninjas go, at least Vladivostok can arguably be mistaken for a small island at first sight. Seems like an obvious way to cram a T6 cruiser into T7 so as to require less paper ship at the top of the tree. But I suppose that's better than tossing in gimmick shells/smoke.

All was well in the end, thanks for the care and attention.