Carbapenem_17

The biggest problem is the nerf on the manual secondary accuracy. All the secondary builds other than german dealt a amount of damage to destroyers making the build for close cap assists.. now the secondary shells don't even land anywhere near dds, let alone nose-in cruisers. And what use are low pen scondaries against BBs anyway? to start fires? (used to run non-IFHE secondary Alsace for some arsonist memes, but now .. not enough secondary hits to cause fires). I used to get a close quarters expert in every game I played a secodnary build. Now I am barely getting one. FIX THIS WG

Current as of 0.7.9? lol lol that was actually when british dds were coming out Anyway great reviews as always! Your reviews are most fun to read other than dev blog posts!

Wargamming often talks about how torps are useful in close quarters combat for cruisers. But I do wonder how often that happens in a cruiser. I am not a cruiser main and don't do well in them.. so any thoughts on this anyone? The only time I ever go close quarters is yolo or in ships like the worcester for radar (8~9k ish).

According to 3d models the CV in the video has German planes.. possible CV split? also.. why the hell doesn't the british get it?(not that we know of but the footage shows german planes and wanted feedback) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Voss The name of the CV was W. Voss so..

Great job mouse! Though this is only WIP, I am greatly sad to see that WG completely disregarded Atlanta & Flint by taking away AFT, and Siegfried by taking away manual secondaries for cruisers. It makes it look they don't even consider these ships when planning for these changes...

It's kinda sad to see that the Atlanta camo, despite looking amazing, has the same benefits as a standard camo. Can we at least get something like a 50% + to commander xp or 50%+ to free xp?

Yeah, totally not worth it even if you are going after the T8 premium containers. You'd be better off buying doubloons and using the coupon in the armory (unless it is not a ship in the armory). And they are just selling a cool looking camo for the Atlanta.. well it looked too good to be a free one!

Great, now secondary ships have to turn on and off secondaries as well

Just had a thought A lot of the problem around CVs is the spotting, different gameplay, useless AA and such. This is all because the ship has such a different gameplay right? So how about making it like all other surface ships? Instead of firing shells, CVs 'fire' planes. Since the planes are in this case 'shells', they don't spot. The players would have a binocular view from their carriers and aim just like in other ships. When they fire, planes role out and automatically attack the target at the point of their aim. Maybe slower than conventional shells (like torps I guess? but doesn't hit anything in between). We could use an aiming reticle like a torp reticle that extends to the point of the drop. Like AP and HE, people can choose torps(number 1 key) or bombs(number 2 key) for broadside or nose-in targets respectively. (No rocket planes then) There will be a reload time on the planes. It'll have to be balanced with the max damage it can do. AA will be like the 'armour' for surface ships. Just like HE shatters on armour it can't pen, the AA rating will act as the threshold of how many plane drops the ship will recieve. This way the AA is much more consistent. For example, if T8 Lexington 'shoots Torpedo bombers' at Iowa, only like 0~1 torp (RNG) will hit. While if it 'shoots' at an Amagi, 2~3 torps (RNG) will hit. Now any AA skills would increase the 'AA armour' of a ship. Certain ships with bad AA (or good AA) will be able to overcome certain 'AA thresholds' making it impervious to CV's 'pens' (or plane attacks). Although some balancing would be required. The CVs would have better concealment(like 8k), it would also have a limited range (like 18k~20k). They won't be able hit targets they don't see. It may be necessary to make it impossible to 'shoot' directly behind islands. CVs will alos recieve the same treatment as other surface ships in regards to detonations, fires, flooding. Making fires impossible to launch planes. Also CVs need to think more about their positioning. The 'bloom' from the 'firing' of planes(like the concealment bloom from firing shells from surface ships) would be limited to a certain amount. It would still feel like a surface ship AND have similar aiming mechanics AND take care of the early spotting problem AND take care of the AA incosistency. Individual CVs will have their own traits : fast 'planes/shells', high fire chance, high damage, 'dispersion' of attacks, german/japanses CVs may be given the ability to cit with bombs (of course either the damage is close to shell damage or have a very long reload on the 'planes') I mean with this they can even give the ships consumables and maybe add the second line of CVs as well. It'll just be like a lightly armed cruiser.

Make US dd AA great again!

Monarch... I think I understand why it's so unpopular lol. I stopped grinding the UK BB line after hitting the Monarch. Prob many just bypassed it with free EXP. For Richelieu, the dispersion is quite problematic. It shares the same artillery charactersitics as the Jean Bart but for some reason Jean Bart just feels more consistent and powerful. I just can't love the Richelieu like the Jean Bart.

Then contrary to popular belief, the new US BB line would be surprisingly resistant to HE spam! It'll be interesting to see how it performs in ST

Most of the ships I enjoy are tech tree ships(Des Moines, Worcester, Bismarck, Kremlin, Fletcher, Iowa, Alsace, Minotaur). Premium-wise I only play those with gimmicks!

So, I remeber that torp belts supposedly 'nullifies' damage and went back to the WoWs wiki to confirm that : Does that mean if I shoot at the broadside of the ST ship Minnesota (the part covered with 32mm torpedo bulge up to the deck) with like a IFHE Worcester, I'd do almost no damage but get pen ribbons?

Why does the Odin have a bald spot? lol