ryuukei8569

Actually I'm pretty Sure Kansas is a 1920 South Dakota, but given a post pearl harbor makeover like the Standards. And Florida is basically pre escalator clause North Carolina. As for Minnesota and Vermont...... yeah I got nothing on them. Granted T9 and 10 of a USN BB split was always going to be some paper or another, but i was expecting 1940's era paper designs, not outgrowths of 1920 south Dakota. Id figure 1920 south dakota would have ended up as being the alternate USN T9, or perhaps a ship from the Iowa design study that trades speed for protection and a 3 x 3 18 inch 28-30 knot design for T10. This design choice is, questionable at best. But Wargaming has already sunk the time it takes to model the things in game, so its already too late to stop their implementation. And i do 3d modeling myself, this crapis not easy, you are asking wargaming to throw away a lot of time sand resources that they already sunk into making these things, and quite frankly, that's called being rude and selfish. That being said, these things do need a lot of help from the balancing department before they have a hope of making it into the game. For only being limited to 23 knots, they do need to be a lot stronger in their firepower and/or protection to be viable, and right now, they dont have it. Those horrid reloads in particular need to go.

Un no thanks. There is a good reason Baltimore got removed from T9, and Oregon city would have all the exact same problems that the old T9 baltimore had. It wouldn't work without putting some insane fantasy reload buff. Likewise buffalo would just get [edited] at T10 without a similar crazy reload buff, or using the CA-C designs that has a lengthened hull and is faster. As for Seattle, yeah, might as well. That POS is basically an obese Cleveland that somehow manages to be worse in every metric that counts. Even putting a Cleveland with no buffs other than a T9 module and heal would be better than that steaming pile of crap.

Musashi to T10 where it belongs, with restored 2.1 sigma of Yamato, and maybe to counterbalance the lack of AA, give her some silly 10 k base secondaries with very high accuracy like Georgia and Ohio. Retier Leander to 5, and put a Minotaur (1943) class in its place. Minotaur 1943 is basically a shortened Edinburgh with one less turret. Sinop to T8, because that thing is just [edited]broken at T7. There would be a number of ships i would just kick out and replace, Like Seattle, Monarch, and Ibuki

So i Guess Akatsuki is this almighty good gunboat destroyer which can very comfortable and easily take on every other DD at T7 unless its name is Skane, right?

Honestly for gameplay balance purposes i think Every ship should have some form of ASW capability, such as Heavy Cruisers and Battleships being able to call in patrol Aircraft which can launch a depth charge attack, somewhat similar to how CV Strike aircraft can call in fighters. Also Higher tier DD's should get hedgehog and other ASW mortars as well.

Clan Battles has already been in decline for the past several seasons thanks to some hilariously broken T10's, like Kremlin and Kleber. I know last Season my own clan was having a hell of a time just getting into a match doe to the very long Que times. CV's will just put clan battles out of its limping, broken misery. Even for they clans that are willing to put up with the CV's it is guaranteed some clans wont play this season leading to even longer wait times, a greater chance of just fighting the same clan over and over again, which will just lead to even fewer clans playing. Really the biggest problem with CVs' in clan battles is how it will narrow down the choice of what ships to take in a field that is already somewhat limited anyway. Cv's will straight up just kill off DD players out of clan battles, and Clans that have CV's will be forced to turf the BB's out since CV's take up the BB slot. But not every clan will have good CV players, or T10 CV's at all, and strings of constant defeats because of this weakness will cause them to get frustrated and quit. CV's will narrow down the number of useful cruisers for CB's, so players that dont have the Ships that are good for the meta will cause these clans to suffer. and Even if the clans themselves dont boycott, the fact is some players will, and for those clans that already have a hard tome getting a full seven man team together, losing a player because of this can effectively take that clan out of the season.

I've done some rather extended testing on PR's actual accuracy, and functionally its near enough to alaska's that it doesn't really matter. Sure it isn't as good as stalingrad, but to be fair, Alaska fails to reach that high standard as well.

OK now I know WG is procrastinating with Italian BB's, which we should have got after British cruisers, but this is ridiculous. It seems that they are willing to pull out any random ship line now as an excuse to put out instead of the Italian BB line.

Absolutely, positively no. Asashio is a stupid gimmick ship that overspecializes in torping BB's (because realistically they will never get to hit CV's unless the enemy team is already losing or the Asashio player is doing the oh so brilliant circle the edge of the map to chase the CV maneuver. And occasionally the MM will raise a giant middle finger at you and put the thing in a match with almost all cruisers and DD's. Shimakaze is by far more universally useful. Although like a lot of the older T10's, it has felt the sting of power creep. Though now that Kleber has been nerfed, things are a little easier for Shima. Before Kleber's detection nerf, if you had the misfortune of running across one, there wasn't crapyou could do except die. But as a DD itself Shima is not horrible, and even under right circumstances if you take advantage if its murder powerful He alpha and its superb Shell velocity, you can comfortably kill or at the least Deter a gunboat DD as long as you dont try and Knife fight. A kiting Shima can absolutely wreck many other DD's, and while its torpedoes may not always hit, when they do hit, they are nearly guaranteed to flood, in which you can then use its good fire chance to follow up and set perma fires. And while Shima is no longer the fastest T10 DD, she is still one of the faster one, and has phenomenal concealment on top of it, making ti a good spotter, which is why it still is a fairly viable choice in competitive.

With its current stats the only thing the Yashima is the Ultimate of is the Ultimate Helper of the reds, and the ultimate deadweight please carry me for the greens battleship.

After the Pr fiasco, i cant muster up enough [edited] to really care about this one. I have already decided to close my wallet to the game anyway.

Or you just simply blasted clean through their belts, Neither of those ships have enough belt armor to stop BB AP at any range ingame.

Hey mouse, you may actually want to do some further testing of the Accuracy of Rico. I actually did some Testing myself, by basically shooting at a Stationary and very angled Yamato from 17 km away, comparing both Rico and Alaska. My results ended up being 51.4% hit rate for Rico and 51.6% hit rate for Alsaka on HE. AP yielded a 57.3% hit rate for Rico and a 59% hit rate for Alaska. So it seems to me that in terms of actual functional Accuracy, the two are basically close enough that it makes practically no difference. And it makes me wonder why Wargaming ever bothered coming up with a new dispersion figure for Rico instead of just straight up porting over alaska's pattern and calling it done. Though i have noticed that in accuracy means, Alaska tends to be a bit more inconsistent. Alaska tends to err towards the extremes more frequently with Salvo's that sometimes hit 8 out of 9 down to 2 out of 9, where as Rico seems to stay towards its median of 8-4 hits per salvo more than Alaska. Maybe its worth doing more investigation on this.

Not just videogames. Many card games and tabletop games tend to have a rather vicious cycle of powercreep too.

Maybe because, you know, it actually isnt. Any ship large enough to fit a useful number of 20" guns, and still follow any vague realism in regards to that caliber would be far too large to really fit in the game, but a ship within the size range of the game cannot fit more than 6 of them, which is too few to be useful. your engaging in the slippery slope fallacy, stop it, reality doesn't work that way.