Ms_Makawee

It's intended for a tier 5 DD (in a DD line with AA as a focus) to have more AA than a tier 7 DD in the same line? It's intended for the AA on those US DDs to be so bad even mid tier Japanese DD AA from things like Fubuki, Mutsucki and Hatsuharu is more potent? It doesn't seem to make any sense from a balance perspective or a progression perspective.

Even just reading the patch I noticed one thing that stood out immediately, and I right after went to log in and confirm. I'm actually very upset by the change that removes the C hull from Farragut, Mahan, Benson and Nurnberg. I strongly dislike this change because it nerfs the AA on Farragut and Mahan very significantly and the small DFAA buff does not make up the difference remotely (Benson is less impacted, as its AA setup mostly mirrored Farragut of two tiers lower and was meh even on C hull at tier 8). Both of those ships had very potent AA, as is an American trait, especially if they were specced for combat vs planes. They could protect themselves and others very well with skilled play. By removing the medium range AA ring (only C hull had it) and lowering their overall damage in the close range AA ring to boot these ships now have incredibly gimped AA capacity to what they had previously. I would comment on Nurnberg as well, but while I have it, I rarely play it. Sims even with an early war AA loadout now has over double the AA damage of Mahan. Nicholas now has more AA damage than Mahan and is two tiers lower. Even a non AA specced Hatsuharu somehow does more AA damage in both long range and short range AA rings than Farragut (and both ships only have long and short rings, so Farragut is bested in every portion of AA). As someone with near unicum winrate in these ships, this will incredibly impact the way I play those two ships in a very negative way by significantly hampering one of their strengths. I hope this is rethought or at least something is done about it.

Very excited for them, though I wish it had been a deeper line.

Immediately came to see how sister fared and learn details. Good work.

I am 99% sure that is where I purchased them, yes. I could be wrong since it was done yesterday as opposed to 5 minutes ago, since I did have the idea to use the containers to hopefully finish it, but that is what I remember.

I purchased some Soviet containers in the Armory for the event and they only gave me new currency, not the old that is necessary.

Yikes, I had 1399 tokens and now can't get the ship!

This is what I'm most excited about, maybe they can finally add amazing anti air eye candy? Maybe the port will be fast despite me having 270 ships? We'll have to see!

I agree that gaming on hardware with no bias towards video capabilities is pretty droll, but there are as many Macs factored towards power as there are for portability/small form factor. While I'd never recommend someone get a Mac Mini for gaming (though it is a great server farm or low profile form factor and can number crunch very well), for example, an iMac is perfectly capable. It currently comes with an option for a Radeon Pro 580 (roughly same performance as GTX 970) which is perfectly acceptable for gaming and easily maxes this game.

I have to agree honestly, the aviation facility being so beefy seems questionable since they were going to be Carrier Escorts and Cruiser killers (eh I don't like aviation facilities either), let alone how odd the return to amidships ones are. Plus while they are twice the weight of a Baltimore and 130 feet longer, they managed to... get 2 more quad bofors and 10 more oerlikons. For a US ship their size and commission time, they seem kinda under AA-gunned, since keep in mind, they weigh almost as much as, and are longer than, a South Dakota. While their main guns are very impressive, they have less anti air (8 five inchers less, 2 quad bofors less and 43 oerlikons less) than a ship they are 120 feet longer and have smaller guns than.

Myself for fast BB high tier needs and Colorado for slow BB mid tier needs. Would keep a low tier, but, only two!

Understandable, I'm still running a 2010 Mac Pro myself. Thinking to possibly upgrade soon though and looking forward to the new Pros, as in hindsight it's getting a bit long in the tooth. Plays WoWs real good though still!

Wine is capable of 64bit, including on Mac. The last Mac sold that was not 64bit capable was the 2006 Mac Mini, I will assume your machine isn't older than that .

Instantly buying as soon as I can!

Carrots, we promise, lots and lots of carrots.