syraku

If you actually read the post, you will have access to *buy* the superships from the tech tree as long as you have 3 T10 ships, AND the corresponding T10 ship of the line researched. No one ever said you would magically get them for free. Again, if you read the post, superships are not intended to be spammed like T10 ships can due to the combination of premium time/signals/permacamo, hence the high base cost. T10 premiums are also not frequently directly sold so "new" players would either have to wait for these opportunities or get freemium T10s through the Armory, in addition to also having researched the corresponding tech tree T10 before they can even buy the supership. If you need an example, you need to have researched Yamato along with having 2 other T10 ships before you can buy Satsuma. There's a lot of hoops that 100% new players have to jump through to get to this point.

T8 ships do not meet superships, they are de facto T11 ships, and they only meet T9/T10 ships. They're also meant to be extensions of tech tree lines so it makes sense for them not to suddenly gain characteristics of premium ships. I would suspect that endgame players i.e. those that have purchased all existing tech tree ships and have the means to grind resources quickly simply don't spend their credits fast enough with regular play due to permanent camouflages on tech tree T10 ships, premium account and signals, all of which combine to make a healthy profit even with below average play. Long gone are the days where T10 was considered skill-gated due to the punishing economy if a player did not perform well (T10 permanent camouflages were introduced in 0.5.14 in late 2016). Nearly six years on, it seems devs are looking to rebalance the economy. Auctions have been a credit sink, and now also a coal sink with the most recent one (200k coal for 20k RP being a pretty bad deal), and there's the upcoming changes to camouflages and bonuses of which details are still yet to be revealed. I'm not particularly worried about superships, many of these designs are getting close to the limit of all-gun warship proposals, with the cruisers in particular seemingly having little historical basis. I do find it amusing that Khabarovsk was replaced by Delny in what was described as an attempt to crown the line with a ship that ostensibly created a more logical progression, only to bring back a very similar design in Zorkiy as the supership of that line.

A sunk player will always keep their points. There is no way to lose points at all in the old mode, so I don't think that will change in the new one. In the previous iteration, hunting players wasn't always the most efficient because they were generally much harder targets than bot monsters and did not always have a lot of points - you could see how many points monsters and players were worth next to their HP bars. PvP was only really a thing because of the Octagon mechanic where the remaining players that didn't exit in time battled it out to the last ship. There's no more Octagon now.

Sergio Leone, hence the joke.

Because SAP shells work like HE shells when dealing damage, yes, it is possible - provided your SAP shells are directly impacting the citadel and also have enough penetration for it i.e. having SAP pen that is greater than or equal to the thickness of the citadel. At T10 Venezia's SAP has a penetration value of 54mm and no other T10 cruiser has citadel armour that thin. Even Smolensk gets a 70mm citadel.

You've reminded me of the Courageous-class actually - Fisher wanted these things to be called large light cruisers due to them being upscaled cruiser hulls, and conveniently ignoring the fact that they carried 15" guns. The term that mostly sticks when these ships today is "battlecruisers". It's sometimes the case to have an example of a ship from a class that's generally supposed to be smaller, be bigger. Take for example the type 1936A destroyers, armed with 150mm guns, that outgunned very small, very old light cruisers such as the Tenryuu-class. No one's calling the type 1936A cruisers, any more than people are calling the Tenryuus DDs, because they don't mix up definitions that don't belong in their respective eras. That simply shows how things got bigger and (in most cases, but not always) better as time and technology progressed.

>1910s >WW2 idk man, I think you're stretching a little here. Ships that survived *into* a more modern period does not mean they get upgraded into *being* ships of that modern period, any more than Mikasa and Texas are modern ships of today's standards. WW1 ships weren't built for WW2, and sure as well weren't meant to fight in it.

Ah well, it's the definition I take issue with, not the person that used it..

There is also an issue with the Scharnhorsts being considered "battlecruisers" if the definition we're sticking to is ...Because there were no other battleships carrying guns that small not just in 1936, but for the whole of the 1930s. The Scharnhorst-class' armour wasn't notably worse than battleships (well, one can argue the scheme chosen is inferior to AoN schemes, but that's not what I mean here), but they were still capable of high speeds. This is more in line with what is considered the "German" version of the battlecruiser, rather than the traditional British definition that is mostly associated with the term.

That's what you get with simplifying definitions without context. The word "contemporary" implies the following: 1. having characteristics of the "current" period, referring to whatever period that person or object was from; 2. occurring, existing, living, or coming into existence during the same period of time. That last bit of number 2 is important, and is what cements the Alaskas as *not* comtemporaries of battleships built and completed years before, yet still considered to be under the umbrella of interwar-WW2-era ships. Similarly, the term "battlecruiser" is highly nuanced and has had its meaning change over time before becoming largely irrelevant. The "traditional" battlecruiser definition which was influenced by Jackie Fisher's vision of the battlecruiser concept simply involved carrying guns as large as the most modern battleships of the time, albeit in smaller numbers in several cases, and gave up armor for speed. The Germans took a different approach. They decided to skimp on the armament rather than the armour, yet these were also considered "battlecruisers" despite no longer meeting the firepower aspect of the British battlecruiser definition, although for the most part "battlecruisers" tended to be faster than or were at the very least as fast as battleships, and were generally meant to meme on smaller ships like cruisers while staying away from direct confrontation with full-fledge battleships. This is not entirely true either, and there are several examples of that. As technology advanced, it became possible to build battleships capable of higher speeds that retained similarly high levels of armament and armour as before, or for battlecruisers to gain more armour approaching that of battleships. As a result, the two ship classes, once considered cousins of each other, ended up converging into the "fast battleship" concept. This term also has different meanings across different navies. Japan for example dropped the "battlecruiser" term quite early on and started calling the Kongou-class "fast battleships" after their refits for example, despite the Kongou-class having pretty poor armour for battleships by the WW2 standards. Generally, the "battleshIp" term implies that the ship given that label carried, in theory, sufficient armour to protect against their own guns, but again, because real life is a thing, this is not always the case either. The Queen Elizabeths were one of the first to be called "fast battleships". The Iowa-class was very fast, didn't really carry enough armour to withstand her own guns, but was still referred to as a "battleship" rather than a "battlecruiser". Hood carried a lot of armour for a "battlecruiser", in some areas even on par with that of battleships such as the Queen Elizabeths, yet was always called a "battlecruiser". Of course, Hood's armour was outclassed by other battleships of later vintage. Then you finally get to the "large cruisers". Hoboy. The only reason I'm willing to accept them being called "battlecruisers" has absolutely nothing to do with their design lineage, that of being derived from battleships. Rather, these new ships came from the other end - they were more upscaled cruiser designs than battleships with gimped armour. Notably, these new "battlecruisers" or "large cruisers" did not match the armament of battleships built and completed at the same time: the majority of these ships carried 305mm-310mm guns to battleships that carried 406mm-460mm guns. Again, there are exceptions: designs exist of Soviet "light battleships" meant for the Black Sea that rather resembled Stalingrad-class hulls but armed with 4-6 406mm guns all facing forwards. The reason the "battlecruiser" name gets stuck on them because they still straddled a line between heavy cruisers and battleships as traditional battlecruisers always did, and these things were also meant to hunt and destroy regular cruisers just like traditional battlecruisers were always meant to do. Today, there are still warships in service that are considered "battlecruisers", but largely by foreign observers, and not by the navy that operates them. I suppose, for the Kirov-class, the term "battlecruiser" applies because they're rather much larger than standard modern guided missile cruisers, but are still smaller than the primary capital warship of modern navies: the carrier. Wonder what a "battleship" would be like for today's standards? Who knows. I'm not out here to prove anything, but I merely want to show the fact that words and terms change meaning over time, and the term "battlecruiser" has had quite an eventful journey throughout its history.

Nice to know protected cruisers, armored cruisers are "contemporaries" of guided missile cruisers because they still both exist today..

I'll take that Mikasa buff though.

Achievements do not award you extra XP or credit bonuses, but they do award you with signals most of the time. Your first detonation of the day in Randoms or Ranked gets you 10 anti-detonation signals, for example. Heroic achievements like Confederate and High Caliber already imply you're doing a significant amount of damage to the enemy team, so scoring well naturally follows. Other heroic achievements like Kraken Unleashed or Solo Warrior are much less dependent on the damage you deal and much more situational - you can earn these with very little real contribution to matches.

Seems pretty reasonable. But don't worry, lots of games go this way because there's a lot of things to take in at once in games. If you do your thing and it works out, that's all that matters really.

I still don't quite understand why Graf Zeppelin has noticeably worse concealment than the two hullclones that came after her - both Parseval and Loewenhardt are quite closely related to Graf Zeppelin's design (the former being an improved design eschewing the heavy 150mm guns and going for diesel propulsion and the latter being a representation of an earlier form of GZ herself), both have the same concealment stats and all three have the same model height. At least a concealment buff would let GZ use her meme secondaries more often. Her TBs still do work but the AP bombers are just sad, especially when Loewenhardt proves that a circle-shaped DB reticle actually works when it's small enough.