Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'battleships'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Programs Corner
  • Feedback and Support
    • Support
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan and Divisions Hub
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 44 results

  1. GothicNightmare

    Izumo why are u so Bad

    the Izumo in my option is the worse Battleship of the IJN BB line I hate running this thing I know the main goal of the line is the Yamato and that is the only reason I am gridding this to make things worse it is after a really great tier 8 amagi so I was wondering should the izumo be buffed or removed and replaced with something else and if so what do you guys thing should replace it I am kind of interested
  2. spmdougherty

    Commonwealth BB tech line proposal

    Here is my view of what a Commonwealth BB line should look like. An interesting feature could be more AP focused, fast for their tier, but with a better than average heal a la higher tier UK ships and American style AA at tier 8 up. weaknesses could be poor torpedo protection, especially lower tier as all are WW1 era designs, and meh secondaries. Fast long-range sniper-style gameplay. starting at Tier 4 HMAS Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Australia_(1911) Tier 5 HMS New Zealand. Slightly tougher than Australia. Maybe with fictionalized post-Jutland 'what if no Washington Naval treaty' upgrades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_New_Zealand_(1911) Tier 6 HMS Malaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Malaya Queen Elizabeth in her 1915 as built configuration as it's stock module, but with Queen Elizabeth stock module as an upgrade. Tier 7 HMCS Acadia This was a proposed Queen Elizabeth variant offered to Canada that was voted down by Ottawa in 1913. Uptiered fictional Warspite upgrade for WW2 service. Tier 8 uptiered Hood variant. Call it 'HMS Erin'. Tier 9 possible name could be 'HMS Newfoundland'. The Renown as rebuilt for WW2 service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renown-class_battlecruiser Tier 10 possible name could be 'HMS South Africa'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G3_battlecruiser what say you?
  3. DesslockVonKraken

    Battleships are a disappointment

    (I am not fluent in English, so forgive me for the typos) I'm playing for only three months I think and honestly I thought this game would be a dream come true because I'm a big fan of naval themes but the reality is this is a nightmare. My biggest disappointment is the battleships, historically they were absurdly resilient ships, and well-armed, the biggest nightmares of a battleship was an Aircraft Carrier and Torpedoes (the issue of torpedoes may vary), but in this game a Yamato, for example, can easily be destroyed by a Light Cruiser, turned giant steel and iron-reinforced ships into a walking barbecue, is simply ridiculous. Ships like Montana are a joke in this game, but in real life they were real monsters, that makes no sense, it's pathetic. The irony is that battleships are the main propaganda of this game, but it's the most abandoned class, it's basically a misleading advertisement. I am a former World of Tanks player, I have played that game since 2011 and honestly, I am well aware that Wargaming is a company that never listens to players, and I am well aware that Wargaming has a bad concept of "balancing" which in general simply make players waste time. Considering these facts, I understand why World of Warships is not a popular game, the game has simply become bland, and there is no prospect of change. No update makes the game more interesting, just "bug fixes" or make ridiculous nerfs (Conqueror nerf for example). I am really disappointed. Of course there will be players who will find it a "blasphemy" to criticize the game but I will do the same thing that Wargaming does: say [edited] you.
  4. So after our CB session last Saturday, I had the pleasant surprise of having just enough steel to finally get my Bourgogne! Would've had her a lot sooner had I not been dumb and bought the Black about 6 months ago lol! Anyway, Ive basically been using my French legendary captain on her. He is trained on my Alsace and I figured his current build would be fine. However, I am curious if any other owners of this ship might have alternative suggestions? My main question is, would it be worth getting rid of AFT for Concealment expert? Im always open to new ideas and any advice is appreciated!
  5. I decided this may be worth posting, because almost every game I've played in my Ohio, someone " often multiple people," will ask about the ship. I know the odds are slim those same players look at the forum, but I haven't really seen anyone posting their thoughts on it post release, and I have yet in fact to meet another Ohio in the same match as me. ( I have seen a few Thunderers.) Therefore, I thought it may be worthwhile to share my opinion of her. Please be aware beforehand that this is strictly my OPINION, and yours may be vastly different than mine, and whether or not a ship is worth earning is ultimately a decision one must make for him or herself. So, is she a good ship? In my opinion she is a great ship! I really enjoy her as a whole. She's like a slightly slower Montana with bigger guns in fast turning turrets. She has a great secondary armament "if you build for it." She has awesome AA, good dispersion on the 457s, heals with fast recharges, and is on the tried and true Montana hull that, when angled, is quite tanky and absorbs damage quite well. Now if you were hoping for a "borderline OP" ship like a Stalingrad, or "blatantly OP" ship like Smolensk, then you may be disappointed as, while very strong, she is very much "balanced" in every sense of the word. There are instances where she will outshine other BBs at her tier. However, in just as many cases, the opposite will be true. I began having better results with her when I quit using my 19 point Montana captain and took a 17 point captain out of the NC and retrained him with secondary's in mind. While still not an all out brawler like the GK, Ohio does lend herself to a little bit more aggressive gameplay as she doesn't perform long range gunnery duties quite as well as her tech tree sister "due to having fewer guns. " In closing, I think Ohio is a great ship, and Im happy that I have her in my port. Again though, whether or not she is worth the work, (or money,) is up to the individual to decide. I will post some photos below to show my current captain skills, as well as the modules I chose.
  6. I was attempting to put IFHE on my Bismarck to boost its secondaries, but the option was locked. Is it possible to put IFHE on the Bismarck and if so how?
  7. Hello, Unmodded game. Issue: Gun volume -setting not affecting battleship guns. Tested on the Montana, Yamato, Bismarck and GK. The volume of the main guns is the only one bugged. Secondaries are affected by the setting. This problems means I have to turn main volume all the way down or my headphones do to my ear drums what the meteor did to the dinosaurs.
  8. skull_122_steel

    Roma Question

    So with the tease of the Italian Cruisers and the new SAP shell type, Can we please replace the HE shells on the Roma with SAP so you don't over-pen when you hit a cruiser with 2 of your 9 shells. On another note what do you guys think of the SAP shells and Fuel Smoke
  9. admiralsexybeast

    Any New T10 BBs On The Horizon?

    Anybody who plays with me in game knows that I am without question, a BB main. I do play DDs, and CAs too, but I never get anywhere near as much consistent fun and enjoyment out of either of those ship types as I do my BBs. That being said, I currently have every t10 tech tree BB in game. Montana is my favorite and Kremlin isn't too far behind. However, I'm starting to get rather bored with the BBs that I have and I'm starting to get desperate for something new. I'm not really open to spending steel on the Bourgogne, as to me she's just an Alsace at tier 10 with a reload boost and from what I've seen, she has to make use of HE to get damage a lot more often than I really like from a BB," I'm a strong believer that BBs are meant to be shooting AP 99% of the time." The only other tier 10s I've heard of that are somewhere in the works would be the Ohio, Thunderer, and Slava. I think the Ohio is going to be an NTC reward, but unless I'll just be able to use my free xp to research the required amount of tech trees right away and be able to get the ship immediately, I don't consider that "on the horizon" so to speak. Not really sure what the acquisition method will be for the Thunderer? If she is going to be a 457mm conqueror that has good AP, that's something I can get behind. However, I've really not heard anything about her recently. Lastly, the Slava, which was out of these 3, the one I was looking forward to the most, was supposed to be an alternate to the Kremlin. However, she has been in the testing phase a lot longer than average, "at least seemingly." I'm starting to wonder if WG maybe scrapped her all together? Maybe too many sub 50%ers were whining and crying about her having accurate guns," you know, those guys that go full broadside in front of a BB in a CA, get dev struck, and then go on a tirade in chat about how the BB needs its accuracy nerfed." God forbid we get a new BB that hits thing at range, you know that thing battleships were designed to do? Anyway, I'm just wondering if any of those will be coming around soon, or if there is something in the works I've missed? Maybe since I shouldn't be spending every game getting chased around the map by rocket planes anymore, maybe I could start playing my DDs more again. Honestly though I'm just dying for a new BB right now!
  10. Yamato (Japan) Pros 18.1 inch main caliber guns that can overmatch up to 32mm bows (Republique, etc) Quite sturdy when bow on Great torpedo protection Cons Cheeky citadel (lewd) Very very sluggish, ship itself and turret traverse Not the top AA Montana (USA) Pros Very accurate guns Heavy hitting 'murica freedom SHS shells : great for citadeling and hitting deck armors for bow on targets. Great AA Good maneuverability Waterline citadel makes it trolly to hit. Can opt to slot secondaries or AA without forsaking accuracy. Cons Very slow shells, bad for sniping Vulnerable to IFHE spam Grosser Kurfurst (German) Pros Very tanky, great health pool Good secondaries that pen 31(128mm), 34(150mm), with IFHE all can pen 32mm (most bows of battleships) German hydro 6k Turtleback armor scheme, making it hard to citadel at close distances Fast turret traverse Cons Gets a lot of pens everywhere Very big and sluggish, easy to hit German gun dispersion BAD BAD concealment Republique (French) Pros Very accurate guns, good pen even at distances Great HE rivaling Conq fire chance Engine boost for flanking and kiting Good maneuverability High fire chance secondaries with long-range French turtleback, not as sturdy, but still usable Cons 32mm everywhere (vulnerable to IFHE spam and nose cits) Guns in A-X position + 8 guns (need to show a lot of broadside for a full salvo) Secondaries are made of glass Conquerer (British) Kremlin (Russian) Well, that was my impression of the 5 ships of the tech tree as an average player. I haven't got the Conq or Kremlin yet, so not much to put on here :)
  11. As a BB main, I was pretty happy to see a new line of BBs in the game. However, I've been grinding away (I'm only at T5 at the moment) and I'm thoroughly disappointed. The armor is bad. The handling is bad. The gun accuracy is bad. It's all bad. I can't tell if it's a bad line or if it's just because it's a low tier, so I'm debating whether or not I want to waste anymore time grinding the Russian line since I'm already working on the British and Japanese lines. Do the Russian BBs actually start to play good at the higher tiers?
  12. With the release of OHIO (Montana with 4x2 457mm guns, faster repair, and Massachusetts (Mass) secondaries in the works, I would like to propose an alternate Tech Tree Branch for USN Battleships. Branching from New Mexico, you choose between Colorado or: T7: Nevada; with 10 15in guns and and secondaries like Mass except the base range is at least 6km. I don't think it will be WV44 since WG already promised her months ago, and no other USN BB in game has 15in rifles. Plus it's Nevada, the same BB that when used as a target took constant punishment from several ships for almost 3 days, without a DMC party or fighting back! T8: Washington; Main Battery should be at least 1.8 and at most 1.9 to put her accuracy in the middle of Mass and NC as well as and at least 20km range, Mass Repair Party and DMC cooldown, & secondaries identical to Mass except 5 sec reload instead of 4. This will give Washington the Profile of a BB with emphasis on her secondaries, but won't fully outclass NC or Mass with the former's higher sigma and range and the later's faster firing secondaries. T9: New Jersey or Wisconsin; Identical to current premium Georgia except with 3x3 406mm guns at 1.8 sigma (to not outclass Iowa and MO as ships that fire accurately at range), no EB, and some extra armor protection (Georgia is a bit frail for a BB). This way, NJ/WI will be the slower but tougher ship, while Georgia is the faster and more nimble of the two thanks to her EB, as well as her unique main battery. T10; OHIO!!!!!!! Please WG, make this happen. You did this for USN cruisers, Russian and Japanese DD's, and those changes worked fine. It's time for a new alternate branch!!! *EDIT* - Nevada never had 15in gun, only the 10 14in guns. Maybe branch off from New York and instead we have Nevada at T6 w/1944 config with the 8 dual 127mm, and then T7 Maryland or California.
  13. Server Battles WinRate Average Kills Average Damage Average Experience Average Plane Destruction K/D EU 101,498 54.01% 1.09 100,062 2002 7.00 2.05 NA 53,532 54.35% 1.13 100,736 1986 6.78 2.61 RU 39,662 56.41% 1.25 110,473 2043 7.99 2.41 ASIA 52,247 55.02% 1.02 97,841 1995 8.25 2.6 Here are server stats as of this now. In my opinion, her guns are too accurate and her armour(citadel included) being impervious to all (non-super/battle/premium) cruiser AP and (Unless you take IFHE Hipper/Roon/Hinden) HE is a incredibly broken. I think I should at least be able to damage kremlin consistently with heavy cruiser AP on a flat broadside. And what is that AA? Why does this ship, supposed to be vulnerable to DoTs, have an AA system that eclipses the USN? But I do not have Kremlin. So what is your opinion on this mega BB? Am I wrong?
  14. Hello everyone I m an active player and I currently own most of the high tier battleships and cruisers in the game and I m a big fan of secondary armament. However, as everyone knows already, the secondaries are terribly underpowered, even if you invest a huge amount of resources, time and experiences ( module, flag, and 14-18points captain ), they still feel underwhelming to use. Personally, I would like to see a global, across the board secondary buff to all ships in the game, such as giving the effect of secondary mod 1 to all ship, and a change to the dispersion formula for secondary armaments. Of course, we need the buff their range. These are just my personal opinions and I would like to know what you guys all think of the current state of secondaries in World of Warships. . Edit: I think that there is one easy way to improve secondaries and make them feel a lot better to use: Simple make the secondaries shoot other targets when using Manual secondary, but the target not selected manual won't have the accuracy buff from the captain skill.
  15. DakotaViking

    What I saw Last summer in Texas

    Pictures from the USS Texas
  16. Tirpitz or the Atlanta for credit farmer/captain building. I'm looking for a really good boat that can make some decent credits but also build up some captains in the process. My play style is mainly playing with destroyers and Battleships. I recently got the Massachusetts and love it's secondary but I'm also looking for another great credit farmer and captain builder. So i can swap by and forth between the two. Would like to spend 60$ or below on a new ship. Any opinions?
  17. Fellow battleship players: Recently I installed Matchmaking Monitor and starting shadowing the strongest (highest xp/match or pr/match) (non-CV) player in my team. It surprised me how much better rated I've become according to WoWS Numbers. I also divisioned up with a good friend for an evening, who is arguably weaker in some areas. I shadowed/followed him in those matches, and my stats dropped in those games and converged to his. A few fundamentals could potentially explain a player's excessive individual performance (over the ship's average). Besides positioning of the ship (location, angle, and speed), aiming, configuration (captain skills, modules, etc), tactical choice (choices of target, AP vs HE, etc), and even quick commands you spam out in the channel are among those. However, I believe positioning of the ship to be of overwhelming significance, and everything else explains no more than 10% of the performance. Therefore, you could try to improve your game by shadowing the strongest player in your team and learn from their positioning of the ship. There will of course be differing opinions on this matter and I respect that.
  18. Just got the amagi and I am wondering what would be the best build and best upgrades to choose for this ship.also wondering how good the ships AA is (can never trust the stat screen sometimes). I am asking here because idk if other older setups are still good to use
  19. Tier III – Knyaz Suvorov Named after Prince/Count Generalissimo Alexander Suvorov, the most renowned Russian prominent military leader throughout the Russian military history. As the last generalissimo of the Imperial Russian military, he was the man who have achieved numerous victories in over 60 battles & many of Soviet & Russian military doctrines were shaped by his legacy combat & logistics doctrines & even the importance of military personnel's morale. Possibly a fitting given namesake for captains & admirals to start getting familiar with Russian/Soviet BBs, honing combat skills as well as tactics & strategies management, and most of all, mustering the leadership to lead the division & fleet to be their examples to follow, not just by force alone.  Tier IV – Gangut Named after Battle of Gangut, which was representing the first important & decisive naval victory in the Russian Navy history. It was them against the Swedish Navy at the Hanko Peninsula of the Southern Finland. It was celebrated by the Imperial Russian Navy since then & tend to have a tradition to named at least one capital ship after that particular naval battle. Tier V – Pyotr Veliky Named after Peter The Great. The once successful Tsar who then became the founder of the Russian Empire, effectively crowned the first Emperor/Imperator of the newly-founded Russian Empire & the head ruler of House Romanov that has long reigned the empire until 1917. He was famous for Westernized most of the Russian cultures, traditions & government institutions reform, as well as laid a framework to modernized & shaped the Russian Navy as one of the most formidable European naval powers to be reckoned with. He has been quite well-known in the Russian VMF as well as at St. Petersburg for being one of Russia's iconic naval cities, Russia cultural center & the former capital city of Russia.  Tier VI – Izmail Named after Siege of Izmail. It was a military campaign led by none other than Generalissimo Prince Alexander Suvorov to besieged Izmail during the Russo-Turkish War 1787 - 1792 & dealt a killing blow to the Ottoman Empire at Kinburn, Ochakov & Foscani with the Black Sea fleet led by a certain Spanish admiral - Jose de Ribas. In that war, came with the slogan "Grom pobedy, razdavaysya!" (Let the thunder bring the sound of victory) to be commemorated as a Day of Military Honor. Tier VII – Sinop Named after the Battle of Sinop, of which was Russia's most earthshaking naval campaign against the Turkish forces of the Ottoman Empire at Sinope during the Crimean War, where the Imperial Russian Navy utilized high-explosive shells of Piaxhans guns for the first time in history, effectively evolved the naval warfare doctrines since then. Prior to Sinop the standard naval armament were smoothbores that fired cannonballs, shot, shrapnel or other projectiles. Piaxhans guns were slowly being integrated into navies but only the French, Russian and American navies had made a comprehensive effort. These batteries represented a clear evolution in naval technology that broke through the final ceiling of the Age of Sails. Tier VIII – Vladivostok Named after one of the Russian VMF's historic & strategically-important port cities - Vladivostok. Its naval fortress complex has hardly been attacked & remained unscathed throughout from WWI to WWII & beyond despite being heavily fortified & was already prepared to fend off a large wave of invading naval forces, particularly against the Imperial Japanese Navy. Tier IX – Sovetsky Soyuz Literally the Soviet Union itself. The lead ship was named as such & the rest of the ambitious number of 15 ships were all to be laid down to be named after all fifteen Soviet republics, with each ship representing a Soviet republic of the USSR - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Turkmenistan & Tajikistan. Those were all once under the Russian Empire - except Finland, which broke away & declared independence from the Russian Empire since 1917 when the Bolshevik Revolution broke out. Tier X – Kreml Whilst the namesake given, Kreml, tends to associate with the Moscow Kremlin - the central administrative government complex of the USSR & modern Russia by many. If anyone understand Russian language, Kreml is, in fact, a fortress complex. Unironically, this Soviet Leviathan represents as a cruising/floating fortress with not only being the tankiest, most resilient BB of all with the highest HP, armor & torpedo protection parameter to tank torps better than anyone; but also stands out for having the most powerful naval armaments comparable to Yamato & has 2nd most powerful AA capability comparable to Montana. 
  20. Commadore_Spire

    New German battleship

    I'm looking at all of the new ships coming out focused on all the navies but the German Navy. Today I saw a new Iowa ship with 457mm guns, how about a German battleship with 457mm guns using the Grober Kurfurst as a template. Also just to see where this goes, how about the A-150 class of battleship aka"Super Yamato."
  21. Fair warning/Disclaimer: This post is rather long, but it is so for a reason. This is a very important topic and nothing about the discussion about the problems around the proposed changes can be left out without properly portraying every failure and flaw in its current situation Although Giulio Cesare was arguably too strong at tier V, (Okt Rev, Texas, and the ARP Kongo clones were about the same level as her performance wise let's be honest, especially the ARP Clones since if we're to judge things based on other ships stats of the same tier the ARP ships global average stats are practically the same.) but that isn't exactly the fault of the GC directly, think about it: what's the main thing that makes the GC tend to perform better than her contemporaries? Her accuracy. GC by far has the best accuracy of all the other battleships at her tier, and for most of the tech tree BB's at her tier their accuracy is downright atrociously bad (looking at you Texas/New York, König, and Bretange). So of course If you're more likely to actually land more shells on target, even though they're smaller, you're going to be doing more damage as a result. Again this isn't at fault of the GC for most of the other TV BB's just being mediocre at best, if anything they should be getting some tweaks to bring them more in line with the rest. But that's just a fraction of what's wrong at Tier B currently, which I'm planning to make a post on later today covering that in-depth, this is on the TVI problems so I'll get back to that. There are currently a lucritave amount of issues with her being at tier VI. So let's start off with a simple one: None of her stats have been buffed, aside from a pointless armor buff (since every cruiser and destroyer you're going to be facing can pen your bow with IFHE anyway it doesn't matter. Plus the fact that even some of your new Tier VI counterparts like the Warspite, QE, and Bayern can just lol-pen your bow anyway it again means your armor doesn't matter, which is beyond infuriating for a ship that is supposed to rely on its armor.), and a slight HP increase nothing has been done to make her even be able to be mediocre at her tier at best. Tier VIII and VI carriers will be able to strike you with impunity, Notser has even shown off how over the course of being constantly hounded by a carrier he never shot own a single attack aircraft. That's a pretty damn big problem. Then there's the fact that although her armor's been "improved" it hasn't actually made it better, let alone be enough to withstand shots at tier VI like she used to at Tier V, since this is a whole new ballpark of ships to face. Since beforehand when you fought Tier VII BB's you actually had a chance of fighting back with your armor and guns if you played your cards right. But when facing Tier VIII BB's you have zero chance of even having so little as a hope of being capable of fighting back, since your gun caliber is so low for its tier (beating out the previous Champ Dunkerque with its 330mm guns with GC's 320mm guns), imcombination of its short range for its tier now (that even most cruisers at tier VI can outrage her now, let alone higher tier ones,) with the addition of the fact that your armor doesn't stand up like it used to against your highest tier possible opponents, as literally every single tier VIII BB will be able to just rip you apart no matter how you angle, as they all overmatch your bow, allowing them to do massive damage to you while you won't be able to do even moderate damage in return unless they're presenting practically a perfect broadside. Which isn't something that can be corrected to no longer make it the case without completely overhauling every other Tier VI BB, and at that point it'd make more sense to just leave her at tier V. Then there's the issue that the reload is now appalling given its new tier placement, given how ships like Dunkerque with its 2x4 330mm guns has a full 4 second faster reload, that's with 4 guns packed into two turrets and being 10mm larger yet still reloading faster than the GC. Then there's the Fuso: she has 6x2 356mm guns that reload in 28 seconds, while the GC has two less guns, again of a lower caliber, that still bafflingly manage to reload a full 2 seconds slower. Then there's the problem of her now having Tier VI MM, which not only is a far more aggressive MM tier than Tier V as you're far more likely to be bottom tier at tier VI than Tier V. Then there's the issue with that MM not being what those who bought the Giulio Cesare bought into: they bought a Tier V battleship because they wanted to play a battleship at tier V with that specific MM, if they wanted to play a BB at tier VI with tier VI MM they would have bought something else like the Warspite or Dunkerque. Which that same new MM placement also completely ruins the enjoyability of the ship due to you now running into so many tier VIII ships that are entirely designed around killing BB's: the Asashio (which I detest that monstrosity), the Akizuiki/HSF harakazae (with the Akizuiki gun turret hull) due to their ludicrous fire rates and being able to IFHE the entirety of the GC at tier VI, every single tier VI and VIII carrier (they can maul you but good luck shooting down a single plane), and again every Tier VIII BB can just lol-pen your bow and Godspeed trying to do anything to them in return unless they're broadside and even then you'll barely do any substantial damage to them. So unless you can make it not face Tier VIII's it will never be a comfortable fit at that tier like it was at Tier VI. Since it can't stand a chance of holding its ground like it could bottom tier at tier V like it would have to now at tier VI. Not to mention there's no role or job the Cesare can currently fill that another battleship doesn't do it massively better than the GC, which leads to there being no point to ever own or play her, as there's just a better ship for every role that does that job but better than the GC in its current state. Warspite does the accuracy and devastating salvo job better thanks to its 2.1 Sigma and 15" guns, that hit more often and hit harder Arizona also fills that same Accurate BB sniper role better as it is Dunkerque fills the same fast flanker role, but with a much faster reload, it is actually faster, and has all its guns in the front P E F already claims the Secondary/Brawler spot  The West V 1941 has better damage potential by far with the same reload speed.  There's just nothing it can do that any other Tier VI already does but better And this is without bringing up the issues of invalidating prior business agreements by changing a product in this manner after it was sold under the assertion that it would never be changed, nerfed, or made worse farther down the line. (Which wouldn't that technically be an invalidation of their previous EULA/TOS promises during the time it was being sold? As wasn't it advertised that it would never be tampered with later down the line?). That's not even mentioning the legal repercussions an action like this could entail, and am legitimately and rather unfortunately finding myself considering if they don't handle this properly. And finally to the argument of "Premium ships ahould be able to have their stats nerfed or made worse after their sold" I have this to say: alright, I'll take that moving forward from here on out only, but you still can't change those that have been already sold, as they were sold with the promise and contract that they wouldn't be changed or modified later down the line. As that's where I draw the line. Which is another reason every fiber of my being is against this change. In conclusion: what exactly am I wanting to happen? WG to cancel the move to teir VI and instead roll-back the buffs given to the GC over the period of time that she's been on sale, that way she's able to be toned down a notch, without it no longer being what people purchased to begin with. The buffs to her were unnecessary and were done after she was for sale, and would be enough of a change to make her no longer OP to the degree she's at; making the ones for the change happy as she's no longer as strong, and those that own her happy as they keep her at tier V, and not have her trashed by having to fight as a tier VI.
  22. I like that they are putting in ships like West Virginia, however I would love to see either alternate, and or options to be able to get or work up to having the ship in the 1944 rebuilt construction version. I like playing Colorado and dont mind her to much in her configuration as she was refit with single 5 inch guns in her last condition. Dont get me wrong I dont think that it would make Wee Vee have to climb a tier but it would be a much better AA platform that how she is in the game now. I just think that she hit her epitome in the last build. I was somewhat impressed at how much time and money were spent on rebuilding, rearming, and modernizing the old Battleships during that time, and just went to show the slow understanding and appreciation of the aircraft carriers. I also know that there were 4 classes of standard type U.S. Battleships that came before Colorado consisting of 9 Battleships starting with Nevada. that means that World of Warships could model at the minimum of 5 and the maximum of 13 battleships, or choices of therein. Of course there are already 4 of these ships with 3 of the classes now in the game. We all no this is not likely to happen and at this point would be a nonsensible request. I have thought that they could have the option of choosing ship names, IE like lets say on Arizona you could choose Pennsylvania. Especially because they were basically Identical ships for the most part. Now, again I am happy to see New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and now West Virginia in the game, and it might get tedious or what some people would consider ridiculous to have a battleship from all 5 standard type classes. With there already being 3 represented in the game though they would only need to put either Nevada or Oklahoma in for that class along with the choices of Tennessee or California for their class. Yes I know that a Tennessee with 12-14 inch guns would be redundant to New Mexico and would be the same tier I'm Sure along with Arizona, but for the love of money and keeping us History Channel buffs pumping more of our pay checks that direction I believe it would be worth it to them. And Yes, once again I would love to be able to play them in the original build and the last refit build also. Oh I almost forgot to mention the first South Dakota class. The six Battleships that were axed due to the Naval Treaty. BB's 49 through 54. They were going to be slightly larger Colorado's with 12-16 inch guns. (Yea, You heard me right) Twelve 406mm 50 caliber mark 2 guns. The same guns that were on the Colorado's. Just 4 more of them. They would have been considered that last Standard Type U.S. Navy Battleships. I think one of these babies could be a tier 8 easy, and or possibly a tier 9 depending on the aa suite. The speed I think would be their worst attribute at a planned 23 knots. Anyway, let me know what you think. Would you like to see some of these ships with the most modern builds on them? would you like to see the option of using different names on the ships that are/were basically Identical? would having multiple Battleships in the U.S. Line just gum up the works, or make it more versatile with slightly different play styles like they have done with Alabama and Massachusetts? I think over time it would make the game more interesting and diverse. USS West Virginia 1944 USS Tennessee 1945 1st South Dakota Class BB Model USS Nevada 1945
  23. I like using my battleship from a range of about 10-13 km away from the enemy ship which is about mid-long range. I also like using AP shells I don't mind HE either. I look for accuracy and power of the turret as well. I like going alone. Will the French or British battleships be better suited for this type of playstyle?
  24. I understand this is a contentious issue, but battleships seem to me to be far too agile, able to stop on a dime, accelerate as though at a drag race, twist and twirl at will, and dodge perfectly honest and carefully thought out torpedo spreads. This seeming immunity of bbs to torpedo attacks, means that destroyers and carriers are being deprived of their deserved successful hits. While it is accepted that WOWS is not a simulation, it is important to retain elements that increase player immersion, and a semblance of intuitive gameplay. What does intuitive mean in this case? Making sure that physics in WOWS follow a logic which we respect and live by in the real world. Now how did battleships gain speed in real life? Assuming the warships oil fired boilers are partly heated, that the battleship is lying ahull (no power to shafts), and assuming the battleship captain knew several hours in advance, that torpedos were incoming on the starboard bow; it would take a modern ww2 era battleship 3+ hours to increase team pressure sufficiently, to then increase speed. Well you may ask, who needs speed, to turn and dodge the torpedos? All ships do, without water flow around the rudders, they cannot bite, or deflect, a slow ship turns, slowly (if at all). I am not suggesting that WOWS reflect real life, quite so precisely, but I do think, an increased initial delay between "full ahead" order and actual acceleration would be an enjoyable addition to the game, if that [insert value] delay were communicated in a clear and comprehensible manner in game. In the interest of fairness, this might be applied proportionately to all ship classes, dds, cruisers and battleships. Thankyou to @Alabamastan for suggesting this topic. edit : many interesting and informed replies, hot link directory of most recent (these guys seem to know what they are talking about ) : https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/184986-battleships-are-far-too-manouvreable/?do=findComment&comment=4344391 @Ares1967 https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/184986-battleships-are-far-too-manouvreable/?do=findComment&comment=4344401 @hipcanuck https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/184986-battleships-are-far-too-manouvreable/?do=findComment&comment=4344453 @So_It_Goes https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/184986-battleships-are-far-too-manouvreable/?do=findComment&comment=4345030 @LT_Rusty_SWO
  25. I'm quite honestly a bit disappointed that when it comes to the Pennsylvania class we got the Arizona and nothing on Pennsylvania at first this shattered any hope I had of ever playing my favorite battleship from history but it's actually not necessarily a lost hope. I was equally disappointed when I saw they didn't add in West Virginia (though they eventually did, even if it wasn't how we wanted it...yet), Maryland, Oklahoma, Nevada, Tennessee, or California. Where were these iconic ships? Though I must say my biggest problem was the absence of Nevada and Pennsylvania. That being said I realized that generally these ships (as they were at Pearl Harbor) all would've hovered around tiers 5-6 anyway but then I realized they all (the ones that survived anyway) faced severe modernizations and upgrades. Nevada was near unrecognizable after her refit and Pennsylvania did too. I would suggest that in this state they would be placed like this. Oklahoma at tier 5 (no refit because she was too damaged to be repaired). Nevada at tier 6. Pennsylvania at tier 7. Nevada would have a firepower disadvantage against the likes of NM and AZ but her aa would chew through planes like paper (if they ever get around to making that system less infuriating). Pennsylvania would also suffer in main battery firepower among her peers but would have respectable secondaries, beastly armor, and a terrifying aa bubble that would make equal tier and maybe even a tier higher carriers cry. If you want to give me a reason against these ships appearing don't give me the "21 knots are painfully slow and nobody wants another slow ship" because yeah, i know. Not many people want a ship that does less than 25kts-26kts nowadays but hey I deal with it because I love the ships and 21kts is hardly a heavy price to pay for touching history and being at the helm of one of my favorite ships. Besides that feel free to tell me what you think. I'd love to see these ships but as the years have gone by I feel like WG has just neglected these ships. I found hope in their addition of West Virginia but I could see them turning around and stopping right there I hope this won't be the case and I hope to see these ships in the future as I would love to see Pennsylvanias, Tennessees, and Nevadas sailing around in matchmaking. I know it would make a lot of people happy to be able to sail their favorite ships from history and it would make me, a absolute battleship nerd, happy beyond expression, thanks for your time readers, and I apologize for the giant word block.