Meatshield_No13

Gun barrels do not spot. Gun barrels do not loiter to continue to spot if they desire. Gun barrels do not traverse the map separate from the ship. Again this is not an honest assessment, you have decided to declare that planes are equivalent to gun barrels. This entire assertion is a straw man, a deflection again to avoid to original questions asked, of which you did not address. Again no actual reasoning behind it, just an attempt to create a false equivalence. CV planes are not guns, arguing that because guns can traverse planes should be able to traverse is straight up dishonesty and again avoids the core discussion. For comparison your stance is the equivalent of arguing for gun turrets to be able to detach from the ship and fly around the map shooting at whatever they choose from the targets they self spot. The squad prep time is equivalent to gun/torpedo loading time. It’s not equivalent to aiming, we know this because you do your aiming later. It is ammo loading time. A BB doesn’t get to redirect its shells during travel time. Once a BB has fired a salvo the ammo type is fixed unable to change until reload. Just like a CV that launches a squad can’t change until it chooses to reload. I don’t need to imagine a BB that spends 45 seconds not able to shoot an enemy at the start, it happens all the time.

This is misinformation, BB guns have to load. 20 to 30 seconds loading time depending on the ship itself and modules. That is not the "first seconds of battle", that is hyperbole. Secondly how are they targeting a a "broadside cruiser" 20km away within seconds at battle start? Battle start no enemy ships are visible. They have to be spotted, and excluding CVs no-one can spot enemy ships that quickly. Thirdly BBs are still map position dependent for making shots, on many maps a BB that spawned near A cap will not be able to delete a broadsiding cruiser near C cap at the start of the game. You don't actually have a defensible position here, no other vessel in the game is capable of attacking another enemy vessel purely by it's own capabilities in the opening of the game. Even BBs require an enabler, that being the enemy vessel lighting itself up by shooting. The enemy becomes the enabler, allowing the BB to shoot at it. The BB could not have achieved that without that enabling. CVs spotting and attacking in the opening period are doing it purely by their own merit not reliant on another ship. They didn't need an enabler. Why should a CV be uniquely exempt from the opening lull that all other ships also deal with? You are complaining about being held to the same standard that other ships are held to, why? What is your justification for being unique? 45 seconds is too boring? Irrelevant, everyone suffers from the same alleged boredom. Communicate/Plan/Begin moving/Re-assess enemy line-up. Why should a CV be able to exploit bad spawns when they occur, again no other ship can exploit a bad spawn on the other team by it's own merits in the opening of the game. Why should a CV be able to attack ship(s) before anyone else? Why should this prep time be reverted? Provide reasoning, construct an argument, address potential counterpoints. You have provided none, instead calling it "silly" and alleging it should be an "April fools". Where is your argument? Or do you not have one because you are unable to construct one?

My Royal Navy bias means I end up sort of conforming to the meta even if I don’t intend to. 2/4 of my fleets are RN with the the other 2 being IJN and USN themed.

I love that abridged series. I still like when they got to the guy holding them and then he explained why and then abridged Asuna immediately came up with a better excuse.

The ammo storage of ships carried enough that even 20 minutes of continuous firing would not deplete their ammo. Ships like the Worcester may and I stress may be an exception but even then it was something like 17 odd minutes of continuous fire. No ship would run out of main battery ammo even if you gave them historical main battery ammo numbers.

Somewhat a tangent but hopefully it will help. RN BB AP has short fuse timers, this means the shell explodes quicker upon arming, so it doesn't travel as far. This makes the shell less likely to overpen in some situations but conversely it also has difficulty reaching citadels that are deeper in some ships. The short fuses means RN AP behaves differently. With RN AP, aiming higher at the upper belt or even superstructure can net consistent damage. It's harder to get citadels with RN AP, but also harder to overpen. SO if you haven't already try adjusting where you would aim against enemy BBs with Monarch's AP. Finally don't forget about the HE, like most RN BBs the HE is strong and a mix of both AP and HE will net the best results, don't doggedly stick to one over the other.

That was an incredibly generous 10 build pull. I think I will stop there and just do the minimum 3x daily now. Even more satisfying seeing Nagato as the first build.

They will probably credit the VA as Kizuna AI.

WASD hax Accurate long range shooting hax Shooting into smoke hax

Submarine information

I think it's less about the islands and more about smoke. Smoke uses the same mechanic as seeing through islands for detection, 2km(3km with module) for assured, +Xkm for Hydro, and +Ykm for radar. Remove the ability to detect through islands and it probably also removes the ability to detect through smoke. I don't think the code differentiates between smoke and islands, rather treating smoke as a temporary island.

Answers the question about new AP mechanic. Short version: PVE, stick with HE, not enough instances of heavy armour bosses to merit it. Heavy Armour is the only armour that can be debuffed. PVP, If using a multi BB back line one ship with AP has some merit. I'm surprised they didn't consider say nerfing the HE damage against heavy armour to say 80-75%, even then considering how little heavy armour there is.

Do you use Hood or Amagi a lot? Both of those ships want faster firing guns to increase instances of their barrage proc while still dealing decent damage with the gun itself, the gold 381mm is considered to be one of the best guns for ships like Hood and Amagi, ships that have a barrage proc upon main gun firing. It isn't useful on ships like Washington because her barrage is contingent on fixed time intervals. Gold twin 381mm is good for Hood and Amagi. Also huge caveat, the new AP mechanic is being introduced soon/later today, I have no idea what that will do to the current BB gun meta which revolves around HE shells. It might be that AP becomes important for at least one ship in the back line, and that may be preferred on a faster firing gun to maximize the proc chance of the mechanic, which would presumably optimize with Hood and Amagi.

That’s all I needed from the builds. Just going to probably coast through the event, try for enough Ema to get the torpedo Aux and use it to level some lower level ships.

All of what is being discussed so far isn't the major barrier to widespread self driving cars. Road conditions? Cars data share, dynamically updating each other on changed conditions. Allowing self driving cars to communicate solves a lot of these issues. Identifying a car approaching from the other direction, the cars already know because they have communicated. Something goes wrong, manual over-ride, I can't see self driving cars actually doing away with manual driving completely. Construction zones? Keep the old visible cones for human driven cars. Install a couple of broadcasting electronic cone facsimile for AI cars, AI cars don't need the same visual cues to be informed. Construction zone crew programs in their electronic cones according to the plan and could even view what it would look like using AR tech. All of these are just time and tech related. Mostly revolving around robust and effective networking and data sharing, of course this has it's own issues to sort out to. The real hurdle is the fact you would be placing the choice of life and death in a program. The trolley problem is an example. Flip a switch to save 5 lives at the cost of 1. When faced with a problem of passenger lives vs pedestrians lives how does the AI car handle it? Should the car put passenger safety above all and run down the pedestrian in the safest manner possible for the passenger? What if the pedestrian was a kid? Should the car then avoid the pedestrian at the cost of the passenger's life? What if the the car has a kid as a passenger? Passenger kid + 1 adult vs pedestrian kid + 1 adult? 2x adult passengers vs 1 pedestrian kid? Choices like that are the real hurdle, at present humans make those decisions (whether for good or ill). It's a whole different situation to remove that from human control.