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
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 293 results

  1. The Most Roma Match Ever

    I want to preface by saying that I quite enjoy the Roma. When she performs, she REALLY performs. However, because she's so temperamental, when she sucks, she REALLY sucks
  2. High Tier USN

    Tier III: South Carolina
  3. I am putting out my own video on this nonsense. For now, here's first my critique of Mr. Not-good-enough-Ser. It's impressive how the big three community contributors can get what they want consistently, yet the unforeseen changes they recieve invariably worsen their experience, and they proceed to complain about the very features they asked for to make the game either competitive, or to negate the role of specific ship classes. I wonder what this persistent targeting or casual ship players or ship classes will eventually yield them TL:DR Version- Notser proposes a problem with the game is Experience Gain (XP), and projects issues with his gameplay onto others I contend the game has many gameplay aspects and designs that already reward players, and other edits, such as more irrevocable ranks, or lesser penalties in ranked would help players more than a completely reworked XP model that almost benefits exclusively Destroyers Let's move onto the specific points I make by almost minute by minute bases: 1:00 “They have min-maxed XP . . . this is Wargaming’s fault” For someone who has not hesitated previously to call out the performance of “players” in Battleships rather than focus on the game design; and then cosign blame only somewhat adequately to the company. Later saddling it [poor gameplay] on the players and demanding the company change smoke and dispersion to make Battleships irrelevant, this is perhaps the most ironic thing you could possibly say. Now I haven’t even gotten into the particulars of the ironies of him discussing Experience specifically, which I will do shortly. 1:24 “What is the correct play, contesting . . . and being engaged with the enemy” Problem there, your smoke changes from the 6.0 patches made diving a cap with the biggest guns possible to provide area denial blew that meta up. So now you’re getting your comeuppance; call it Catharsis III. Never mind it’s hard to differentiate from a good versus suicidal push because plenty of situations, even for good or bad players, are catch 22s. You have to push so you may just hope and pray to rally the cowards on your team to follow; or sit in the back and reinforce the risk aversion to a push. It’s very much a “bystander effect” situation a lot of players will find themselves in unless you’re fairly confident or skilled. Sadly, the most confident people [people willing to dive a cap early] tend to be the saltiest and occasionally [not always] the least skilled, call it the Dunning–Kruger effect [When they blame the team or long-range players]. 1:38 “XP isn’t enough to justify the risk or reward” This is ironic consider the number of games one can get first strictly through the crazy XP rate you get from capping now This also ignores you know proper risk aversion analysis because what you truly RISK is the star, you don’t risk XP. To be fair, early on, it’s quite easy to detect whether or not your team is up to snuff to win, and you can easily figure out when it’s time to start being selfish to preserve your progress, because it costs too much to lose given the current ranked structure. 1:48 “From 20km save your star and move on to the next game” Would you advise a Zao or Hindenberg to play differently? I have [had] the sneaking suspicion he’s about to mention battleships here. 2:03 “I don’t want that wargaming, I don’t think you should be punished for trying to win the game” I agree with the latter sentiment, I disagree with the first. You specifically asked for this, and seemed to have simply forgotten how teamwork operates in the grand scheme of things. You do run into incompetent teams that will have 4 or 5 ships crowd a single smoke, but at least when smoke worked, you could actually deny area and encourage aggression since your fights would have to be closer; which is where radar meta came in. Actually, thinking about it, I disagree with your second sentiment as well; because had you actually believed that statement, then what do you think quote, “cowardly” play of ships is other than ships attempting to do their part to win the game? After all, this is universal as a tip, if you survive later into your games as a statistic, you can exert more influence and opportunities to actually win or carry games. You’re no good dead early and earning top XP. 2:14 “Now long range player are trying to win the game . . . they are not giving up everything.” My point exactly; that’s almost by definition how games work [do not give up everything]. Perhaps you’re not a historian or a truly competive gamer, but you don’t shove all in unless you’re about to lose or are truly desperate. Ironically, as the game situation gets worse, some battleships, if they’re smart, will suddenly become more aggressive so they can farm as much damage and XP as possible. Perhaps that had not occurred to you as well. 2:20 “They’re playing it just enough to where, well if we lose, well I’m not losing” Freud would have a field day with you. Classic projection, or did you forget your classic declaration during the 6.0 patches; “It’s MY smoke, only I should use it”. To explain more precisely, I go back again, would you advise say a Hindenberg, Zao, or in this case we’ll include Yueyangs and Shimakaze’s to play differently? They’re not just “playing it just enough” as it turns out harassing the enemy from a distance often provokes a hasty push which your team can exploit. Then again I guess you’re not much of a team player are you? Also your logic, “If we lose, I’m not” basically crumbles if say, there are more than 1 ship remaining both attempting to farm at the end of the game. Normally then you have no guarantee that “You” won’t lose. Then it comes down to who dies last or who farms the most damage in a suicide push. Though this as you or Zoup may claim from my other parts can easily say “this is too general of a statement to be held under scrutiny.” 2:48 “The system isn’t nuanced enough . . . “ So you would like a system that would make it more fun and rewarding to offset the risks associating with pushing or making tough decisions. Or as one of your compatriots puts it “Dumb it down to the lowest common denominator.” –Flamu Now Ironically, despite the denigrating nature that formerly yourself, Flamu, or even Zoup as of late would assign to that, I’d appreciate such a change myself, the problem is of course that would make the game; much less the literal skilled segment of it; ranked play, by definition, targeted toward a casual audience, which is not what you wanted in the first place anyway. I’d appreciate a system nuanced or rewarding enough to offset the painful risks in the game, but that likely won’t happen. 3:02 “I’m really tired of the meta being dictated by what’s the easiest” That’s, partially what metas are; path of least resistance; or more exactly; what will get you blasted wins. In context of this statement, I ask you a denigrating question NoZoupForYou asked us all, “Why are you playing” then? 3:06 “Guess what the easiest this season is? Long range support ships . . .” So basically the same meta since ranked season 6? Never mind we by definition have to ignore 1 through 5 because those kind of cruisers were not in the game yet, and I do not have the data specifically on them, though I can’t imagine it was different then. 3:21 “I hate that a player who wants to play a specific ship is denied that right, . . . [the matchups] are too volatile.” Jesus, I wonder why in the world that is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGofBzE5_ag NoZoupForYou on Battleships https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A7VGOPhhh0 NoZouForYou on Battleships https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMDKrRdVAqc Flamu on Battleships https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTCgNKujaXM Flamu on “Casuals” and Battleships, via Conqueror https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_68vnTIbsas Notser on 6.11 Changes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6nuAC6CnlI Notser “What’s up with me” Digging in your heels 3:34 “This is coming from a DD player” So sit in the back and snipe with torpedoes and quit complaining. You have the second least difficult time in Ranked. What are you complaining about? Is it battleships? I bet it’s battleships. 3:45 “You have all the radar cruisers being punished for being in a position that could threaten their ship” Yeah, and I’m getting tired of being reported for dying first, but I have to be up there, but let’s hear what the anti-Battleship captain has to say about it. 3:46 “Same with the DDs” What? 3:47 “Even the CVs” I’m guessing you’ve not encountered many CVs or DDs despite being a DD captain, but in cases where you’re caught out by radar, you’re not playing long range support . . . you know, the Cruiser’s or Battleship’s job. Remember, longest radar is 12 km, surely you know that. 4:09 “This can’t be the final implementation of XP” Why haven’t you talked instead of placing more irrevocable ranks so that the risk aversion to losing stars is not as great or the very fact losing costs a star rather than just, stagnating a player in position? Would that make the game too casual? How is rank’s structure XPs fault? Oh and on the note about domination, easy for DDs, hard for CVs, but in either case do what I did what Flamu, you, and Zoup demanded I do . . . play, better. Or I am forced to ask Zoup’s question again. “Why are you playing?” 4:18 “It is influencing the way players do every action” I’m sorry, did my previous video, forum posts, comments, and flurry of cursing and swearing, and general feedback go over everyone’s heads? Are we finally acknowledging risk aversion affects us and what 6.11 on after did was amplify our risk aversion? Probably not. 4:42 “It has rewarded the wrong play style universally” Either, you’re not playing it right, or you do not understand risk reward. More to the point, if the problem you find is in all the games, since every single game, not just ones that happen to be produced by Wargaming, have this issue, quote “Rewarding the wrong behavior”, then maybe it’s just you. Oddly the elites all behave in ways the general public do not wish to or ardently refrain from behaving in. To provide an analogy; If you’ve dated dozens of women, they’ve all either turned you down or you’ve broken up with them, and you go “You know what all these women look for the wrong stuff in a guy”, maybe it’s not them. Maybe it’s you who suck. 5:25 “Can we get XP correct for once, please?” Two things, given you just said none of the Wargaming games do this, perhaps it’s high time you realize it’s not being designed for you. More specifically, if they have never done it right, and since we’re including World of Tanks, they’ve not done it right in over 5 years of programing and development and professional marketing, their version of correct seems to conflict with your version of correct. Second, let’s go back a little on this basis to his point about Mediums. Now, as much as I hate to say historical realism plays a part; consider these are more so Arcade War games, not War simulators; Mediums are built if The Chieftain is to be believed, to counter other tanks, other TDs, generally a jack of all trades, and they are rewarded accordingly, especially being both historically, and in gaming the most prolific and versatile tank. You don’t get brownie points for being a specialist if it just so happened something else did your job at the same time. They’re competing against you, intentionally or not, and as far as Light versus Medium versus Heavy ought to be concerned, just be happy you in your example have Mediums that could perform those tasks at all. By extension, I wish to take this time to point out, in theory using my example Battleships ought to be the highest XP earners, but invariably and ironically, you cannot accurately just hand them the first place spot in ranked. Strangely I’d say it’s almost perfectly balanced in terms of who can get first on a losing term based on the game design in terms of XP. I personally would argue DDs get top billing almost all the time, but I would need data to back that up, and I don’t have it on hand at the moment. 5:30 “Couldn’t we see a system that rewards the right actions, that are agreed upon” No, because the two presumptions built into that is one, there are “Right” actions, and two, most importantly, that we can agree to them. We cannot even agree whether or not Destroyer Advantage is a reality, much less whether or not Battleships are in their quote “Right place” in the game. We cannot even agree upon “Why we’re playing”. 5:51 Points on Capping No, m0ostly because I don’t imagine you’ve been in games where your team has all caps, while the enemy simply bypasses them in exchange for murdering all of you for the win despite having cap lead. Dispute that at your leisure, the opposite has definitely happened as well, but surely you know early cap advantage can evaporate stupidly fast with or without an XP change. Fittingly your proposed change would benefit almost exclusively destroyers, the things that can get in and out of caps and defend or contest them fast enough; so selfishly you just want a system that makes you look good, guarantees you get the most XP every time, forget the others. 6:04 “Why isn’t there a reward for that” Because even I know, and all of you know and won’t hesitate to point this out, being out of position earns you nothing. It’s fine if I’m area denying the C cap and have my guns there, but if I’m out of position, unable to shoot anything . . . I’m not contributing anything to the fight; and it is the fight we’re ultimately concerned about. If I’m not in position to fight, what good am I, move my [edited]from the mountain and get stuck in. “Oh, but I brought up already that you’d be punished!” So? It’s a risk I have to take. Do I want to earn my star more, or do I want to ensure I lose the least? One of which freezes me in place, the other actually gets me somewhere, and no one would defend me if I chose to hold my ground close to the enemy, behind hard cover, but couldn’t do anything else but spot. 6:09 “Long range ships don’t seem to want to capture the base” Yeah, but you know what they want to do, fight, survive, they want to attack if possible, but it’s no good to anyone to get in close to fight typically unless you’re a destroyer and no one can see you drop your torpedoes. . . oh wait. Oh, as an aside. It’s not their job to cap. Guess who’s it is. 6:18 “What’s the deal wargaming?” I don’t know, what’s the deal Notser? Not enough rewards for your specific play style? Well you’re one of our unofficial PR people, let’s change that to make it easier for you to look Unicum, would that help Dunning-Kruger? 6:26 “Give you XP for when it’s contested . . .” It’s called your hit ribbons, they already built it in. Oh and if the cap is flipping, defense ribbons. Enjoy 6:34 “Gain defender points while in it” We’ll ignore you contradict yourself, softly, from before talking about being useless sitting in the cap and I’ll briefly explain from a designer perspective why that doesn’t exist: Because the attacker is not actively in the state of flipping the cap to their side. They’re already earning XP for shooting the target. You only get credit for assaulting a cap, when you . . . assault the cap. 6:39 “Nobody knows how to actually play the game” Ghosts of 6.11 are coming up, is someone about to blame battleships? Oh and “nobody” knows how to play the game, but you do? See point about and analogy about dating women and concluding they all suck, which gives you an excuse not to change your mind about what you’re doing. 6:49 “The XP system doesn’t teach you how to play correctly” Besides maybe World of Warcraft, name a single game where XP takes up the place of the tutorial. Since when has gold, credits, XP or what have you ‘taught’ someone how to play. Yes, if we use the classical behavioral psychology approach and say “Well rewards dictate your behavior through positive reinforcement”, yes, but as it turns out you’re also ignoring “Positive punishment” and since the human mind tends to amplify our negative experiences, guess what has way more impact as a behavioral reinforcement than XP. Never mind your XP quite quickly becomes worthless to you in the late or even mid game of warships, so it’s perhaps the least effective reward mechanism you can offer unless it was the Gold Free XP . . . but that would cost the company money. 6:50 “It only rewards selfish play” So being the best is selfish? I suppose you mean strictly on the losing side in the context of ranked, but keep in mind your proposed changes would have impact outside of ranked as well. Then again you and the other two in the Big Three seem to lack a lot of foresight. Let’s put it like this then since apparently it’s selfish. On a selfless, well coordinated team, versus a team of all selfish players. . . who will win? That is by definition a loaded question, but your general statement implies that somehow being selfish alone is far more rewarding than the inverse. 7:04 “Some sort of XP for being close to the capture base” Or conversely make the bases bigger then. Effectively same result technically, but you want XP I imagine over time, which either, benefits almost exclusively destroyers and cruisers who can get on point first. You brought up CVs, and unless you mean XP through planes by proxy as well, this won’t help them at all, it would in fact be detrimental to anyone who wants to meaningfully grind CVs, because what’s the point if I can get through other trees faster? 7:17 “I hate players who have to have three bases” Like who? Since when? 7:20 “You only need to have more points than the enemy team at the end of the game” Your point? (Considering the statement before is unrealistic and/or moot) 7:24 “Why are you pushing into the enemy” Well make up your mind, you either want XP, or aggression or you don’t. Arguably, you asking this question means 6.11 worked exactly the way you wanted; and now you’re complaining about aggression warranted or otherwise? 7:38 “We have base lead, they have a ship deficit, why are you pushing in?” If you’re not going to be blasted specific then this doesn’t matter. In that case because it’s the prudent thing to do. Call it from Starcraft the Day9 Rule: “When you’re ahead, get more ahead” “But Spoor, I just said that’s stupid, and you could very well throw the match that way”, yes, but a good team corned in that situation can make an effort to come back and then they get to dictate the terms of the fight, not you; That! That is why you keep attacking when you’re ahead, you drive them to a corner and 7:45 “I’ve probably lost 20 games like that, this season” That’s it? Is that the only way you’ve lost. I suppose I could take the time to look at the total number of ranked battles you’ve played this season, but let’s use my own for example. Then Of the 68 I’ve played, so I’d lose 1 in 3 on aggressive pushes that went bad while I had the lead. So where does the other 1/3 come from because it took me 13 battles to go from 10.2 to 9.0, the point-2 being two stars in Rank 2, versus rank 9 with no stars. While I appreciate the appeal to emotion, give me data, then may be I’ll give you credit for this point, but there are far stupider ways people are losing out there. Also somewhat hypocritical to bring up a push that went wrong, when the whole first half of this video was long-range ships playing like cowards . . . Specifically in this scenario of an unwarranted push, they they’re doing exactly the right thing and winning the match. Way to defeat your own point, you imbecile you. 8:05 “and I don’t see anything wrong with that because that’s what we want.” No, that’s what you want, never mind the fact you’ve not weighed the consequences of your statements at all like back in 6.11, nor considered viable alternatives that somewhat meet this nonsensical critique you have on specifically Experience all of a sudden rather than ranked game design itself. 8:14 “We don’t want them operating at max gun range” You don’t want them, quit projecting. Never mind that with stealth fire gone, smoke gone, and your own contradiction on how an aggressive push with the lead may cost a game simply reinforces that max range behavior from cruisers primarily, with BBs finally operating as the meat shields in front. Perhaps you’ve not won using these tactics yourself and that’s why you’re suddenly raging against them. I’m perfectly satisfied, win or lose so far, with understanding it’s my job to set fires on Battleships, be close enough to my DDs to support at 13 km to deny space to other destroyers with HE. Make it as hard as possible, or painful as possible for the enemy to win, make them sweat, make them quit. I have to say, it seems to working at least on you. 8:18 “And not helping their team at all at the capture point” I seem to recall someone saying literally minutes ago “You don’t need all three caps”. Also, if I’m alive, and setting fires, or doing damage, how am I not helping the team. Now there are specific context which I can be completely alone in say the 1 or 10 columns, using a spotter and hitting targets, but in now way killing the low health push on my team or denying destroyers position; but there’s that, the image you wish to portray, and then there’s the person who uses range and position to their advantage. 8:27 “Let’s give ribbons for spotting enemies, using radar” I suppose he does not anticipate that this can be exploited by radar ships, including the Yueyang just spam consumables to farm XP and sail away without actually fighting if the team is losing in order to save stars specifically in ranked. Later says having a ship die while under effect, which is already done, spotting damage is granted for that, though I suppose he doesn’t remember 6.11 at all, though I cannot earnestly say when spotting and position were given XP in matches. I suppose he just wants that sweet sweet DD XP for himself because I fail to see how any of this would help any other class at all. 8:43 “Smoke on an enemy who’s dying” Already in game, depends on what the dying ally does from that point on, because if they survive; however, do not continue fighting in any way, besides the points saved, what have you accomplished? Besides other times sometimes true potatoes will simply sail out of it anyway, so how do you picture this being programmed in? 8:46 “These are such simple simple things to check . . .” Spoken like a true person who’s never programmed any logic loops in his life. Never mind I cannot claim to have been anywhere near talented enough to program the same loops that would check Boolean values and factions of health to delineate the amount of XP per Hit Point or per position per unit of time. Ignoring that, each of those scenarios or spotting items is circumstantial and you only get XP, or rather, continue to get XP by virtue of your use in game already assuming you fight. Again, no brownie points for spotting torpedoes and then sailing into them anyway. Though I suppose that will give the Z-52 player like himself far more to farm XP off of. Is anyone here noticing a pattern? 9:12 “It’s the same with DD, CV, CA . .. “ Ah, but not Battleships, but I suppose they don’t deserve it even though your examples for long range mostly apply to Moskva’s, Hindenbergs, and Zao’s using max range and concealment to effect. Also, they’re not remotely the same. I understand your delusion and desire for them to be the same, but how can a CV position to cap, or what consumables aside from heal or AA do they get? What about cruisers who cannot take forward positions because they’re out-spotted by 5km by any destroyer on approach, and out-spotted by some cruisers if you’re the Chapayev or Moskva. How is it the same for them. It might, just might, be for the Minotaur, but even for it, it would struggle with or without smoke, with or without radar getting into position without dying upon being spotted as you noted before. Then for destroyers, given not all destroyers even play the same blasted way, I.E. a Khabarovsk versus Z-52, these two ships have insanely different play styles from each other and must assault positions differently understanding their separate limitations. Though I appreciate your gross oversight in order to favor your own ship class. 9:20 “Why are we rewarding long range gunnery so much?” Because that’s where the fight is lost or won sir; normally won. 9:30 “Why is that not a priority” Because either specifically for assaults and defending, that’s put into the game already and for consumables, why should we reward potentially wasted resources? “But I mean only when the resources are used for effect”, yes, and there’s already spotting XP and stat trackers in game, and you claim they are grossly inadequate? I’ve seen zero-damage destroyers score around middle in the team in randoms strictly through spotting and potential damage. I suppose that’s not good enough for you. 9:35 “That seems like the most important thing to me.” Stop and repeat this to yourself until you realize the chief problem for the past 9 and a half minutes of ranting and bad ideas. 9:50 “There are so many things that Wargaming could do to enhance the team aspect of the game” Like bring back pre 6.11 smoke, oh wait . . . 9:55 “Through manipulating a players tendencies through reward” And others by punishment, though so far it sounds like you want everyone to play your game, not their game, which I am afraid to say is a common trap you, Zoup and Flamu fall into, demanding that the population play your game, rather than the population demanding you play ours. Granted I cannot even claim to be part of the population based on the number of ships I have or my stats anymore. I spent so much time getting better so I may be listened to, only to find myself the hypocrite now, having excluded myself from others experiences to be able to connect to yours so you would no longer ignore me, ignore us. “Seal clubbing potato” with no skill, I haven’t forgotten Flamu’s words, his fourth NA Forum post ever, direct at someone who presumably he didn’t care about. 10:00 “You’re missing out so much with this ribbon system” Besides wargaming itself, what ribbon system or what games are you comparing this to conceptually? Star Trek: Online, where mutual support an science abilities do correlate to a little bit of XP if I remember correctly. Red Alert 3, Starcraft 2, League of Legends, what are you correlating this inane demand in design to? To be fair, thanks to your critique, what I used to take for granted, the Capture Point XP, Defended Ribbons, Spotting Damage, Damage over Time, Fires, Module Knockouts, Secondary Hits, I had never stopped to think of all this stuff that I never thought about was already given to me, also, and most especially giving players credits and XP for earning, for being in the fight, getting tough and ready to try to fight and win. I never realized how much effort the teams have made to reward players for their efforts intentionally or not, it’s amazing to think about. Now obviously plenty of improvements need to be made, but consistently somehow you aim at something completely different or irrelevant; or if you do aim at the relevant problem, you invariably suggest things that make the game worse. “But that’s just your opinion, you think the game has gotten worse” Well, true, but of course it wasn’t just me saying the changes asked for made things worse. Need I point to Notser’s, Zoup’s and Flamu’s videos on clan wars, smoke changes and the commentary made as of late? It’s like patch whack-a-mole with you three morons. Talk to the rest of us when you have actually good ideas. 10:04 “I want this game to succeed, I want players to play this and feel I am rewarded for my action.” No you don’t, otherwise why would you or anyone been in favor of half the insane changes you demanded or suggested we good. No you don’t, otherwise you’d actually insist for changes that appeal to casual gamers, like bringing back Tier V to operations or including an irrevocable rank at Rank 5 which would minimize the impact of people playing to preserve stars since risk of dropping a lower rank is halved. No you don’t, because almost entirely all these changes appeal directly to something your class of ship is singularly capable of and you’ve deliberately excluded a class that you and your little friends have decided don’t deserve a place, much less a voice, in this game. Talk to me when that is amended. 10:30 “We gotta do something about this XP” Notser, have you, specifically, been losing stars because you didn’t get enough XP. Join the blasted club buddy. But audience, you know what that means, wait for 7.5 to have a massive patch for XP, and all your destroyers leap to the top of the scoreboards in randoms from now on, everyone else doesn’t deserve it. I mean I remember the last time he begged like this, he, and his buddies got exactly what they wanted and complained about it after they got it because it made another part of their experience worse. 10:42 “The game is not doing a good enough job empowering them to play the right way” You keep using this, which is a way to weasel in what you believe is the way the game ought to operate as if that were fact. The fact of the matter is, the game does plenty to empower players to quote, play the right way. Otherwise why would Flamu point out how insanely good the Asashio, despite it’s inability to deal with cruisers, still is. The game does empower players. Why at tier ten do the Z-52 and the Khabarovsk, despite nerfs, continue to dominate games? Do you think your class of ship needs to be nerfed more to reward Battleships and Cruisers more? Are you prepared to go to that extent? 11:00 “I can’t wait. . .” You know what, I only partially agree. I can’t wait for things just to be blasted ok, things to be adequate without people like you jacking it up for the rest of us, or misrepresenting the community’s opinion on how a ship should or should not play. I’m waiting for a day when you actually aim to please the community rather than things that please you. I’m almost begging the devs to bring stealth fire back just to shut people like you up because fine, I’ll take the hit if just to throw the “skilled” players who used stealth previously to get back into this game. I’ll take a really painful hit to my gameplay if it just means I get to use my ships the way I want more or less. I can’t even do that anymore, I’ve had to change time and time again for better or worse, and still you think I have someplace I need to be, your blasted place.
  4. Reach out and touch someone or close encounters of the third kind? My preference is to get in close (10km to 15km) and take damage for my team while providing main battery gunfire to keep the enemy scattered and get a vessel to make a crucial mistake. Fire at range or prepare boarding parties? "A good commander is benevolent and unconcerned with fame." - Sun Tzu "A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." - Grace Hopper, US Navy #tacticaltiptuesday #anchorsaweigh
  5. I started WoWs thinking I'd stick to cruisers to get the best of both worlds of torpedoes from destroyers and guns for pounding other ships. I find when in a cruiser I get too fixated on the guns and need to develop strategy and tactics in using torpedoes. For one, I don't use them near enough and I've got to develop an approach to use them where I'm not getting battered by my opponents guns. More than once I went up because I took too much damage when either getting into position or waiting for the torpedoes to load. While I think the versatility of cruisers makes them more interesting to use I have to say there's something to the visceral to pounding an enemy ship with repeated broadsides and seeing there life indicator precipitously slide leftward with each shell landings! I've been alternating between my cruisers and battleships. As soon as one round ends with one ship I immediately start another with the other ship type. Not always a good idea when you forget your ship type momentarily and you wind up pounding your '3' key futilely to switch to torpedoes before you realize you're not carrying any...
  6. As I've been playing World of Warships, I've gotten more interested in the ships themselves. Watched documentaries, videos outlaying hypothetical battles (more or less Iowa class Battleship vs Yamato class Battleship). But there have been 2 warships that have interested me which was the "mighty" Hood and Le Dunkurque. Both ships were pretty excellent Battle Cruisers by the beginning of World War II, Dunkurque being one of the latest additions to the French Navy, meanwhile Hood, though a couple decades old by 1939, was the most powerful ship of the Royal Navy and was the pride of Great Britain until she was sunk by The Bismark. But I wondered what if both ships ended up on each other's business end of their main batteries? Who would win? How much damage would've be done? Now yes, you could do a 1v1 in a training battle in World of Warships and see the results, however player tactics in World of Warships were not used in World War II, and Wargaming is always buffing or nerfing ships to fit the game balance. So using World of Warships would not make an accurate response. What do you think?
  7. Done with battleships

    when a battleship *texas* misses a crusier *Kirov* at less then 5 KM *4.7 KM* its time to give up playing BB's.
  8. This is How You Battleship!

    Happened in ranked... two battleships communicated, pushed and dominated. Quickest round of ranked I've had.
  9. Im curious, how many of you know the new york/texas maximum belt armor thickness? post guesses and comments down below. it might be thicker then you think unless you know quite a bit about the armor viewer and new york armor scheme.
  10. HE Spammers! HE Spammers Everywhere!

    It is me, or is it being a New Mexico bring attention to cruisers who just fire nothing but HE (even worse behind islands)?
  11. Battleships are Painful

    I feel that battleships are painful to play with their current levels of accuracy. At moderate ranges, with broadside targets, a battleship player is lucky to land even a couple shells and actually doing damage is even more remote. With so many cruisers having very weak armor many shells do only over-pen damage. In the meanwhile, enemy cruisers simply burn you down or destroyers lay torpedo ambushes. Playing a battleship feels like playing a large freighter.
  12. Citadelling Battleships in Cruisers

    Right now, my highest tier cruiser is the New Orleans at tier 8, and while I'm somewhat ashamed to admit it, I think I underutilize cruiser AP against battleships a lot (the exception would be Cleveland and the British cruisers, only because of the high rate of fire and British's lack of HE) So I've watched all those videos of Moskvas and Henri IVs citadelling Yamatos, Iowas, etc. Yet I've tried it with New Orleans in the training room (someone once told me in chat that New Orleans can citadel Iowa/Yamato at single digit range) and failed to get any citadels. Could someone compile a list of which cruisers can citadel which battleships? I prefer not to be fruitlessly firing and shattering HE at 7 km while the battleship casually lines up an AP salvo to my citadel.
  13. So after grinding the Wyoming all day just to get the New York, I look down the Battleship branch of the USN tech tree, and I notice that as you get to the next tier, the next tier unlock requirement is double for the xp requirement than the previous tier unlock. So I was wondering, you upgrade to the next tier, does the next tier receive more xp? I realize that how much xp depends on how you do in the game. But let's just say you sunk 2 ships, assisted in a capture and hit 3 citadels as a New York and as a New Mexico, would you receive more xp as a New Mexico over a New York for doing the same thing, but as a higher tier?
  14. From your personal experience, which ship at each tier do you prefer in a comparison of Royal Navy versus Ze French? Let's say Tier V and up... as far as you have one and played it on the server. My choices, tV through tVII would be the French line... they play better, for me. What about you? tiafyc
  15. The overmatch mechanic in the game is not something that new or even more seasoned players often think about or even know about when they are in game. It is the first 'check' that is made when you shoot at another ship (or they shoot at you) to determine whether or not your shells will penetrate. That's why it's actually good to know about and consider when positioning your ship for a head to head battle. Overmatch is the term that is used to describe the relative ratio of a shells caliber to the armor it will come into contact with. That ratio is 14.3:1. That means, if the shell is 14.3 or more times greater than the thickness of the armor, regardless of angle, it will penetrate. For low tier ships this is not too important to know about as the bow-in game play is not as relevant due to inexperience and armor tends to be so thin, most cruisers can overmatch other cruisers. At mid to high tiers, however, (tier 5+) players start to learn the advantages of being bow in from more experienced players on their team. This is also where there are far more distinct lines between ship armor thickness and gun caliber. Most cruisers after tier 5 have bow armor that exceeds 13mm, meaning that with few exceptions only battleships can overmatch their bows and not other cruisers as most cruisers between tier 5-7 are boasting 152mm guns; 13mm is overmatched by 186+mm guns. As you progress down the cruiser lines your bow armor will get thicker, usually from 13mm to 16mm and typically topping out at 25mm at tier 8. Battleships on the other hand, have bow armor at about 19mm at tier 5 and typically top out at 32mm at tier 8. Of course there are exceptions to this, such as the German BB's who tend to have this thickest bow armor with plating. The thickest is actually the tier 5 Konig with 150mm plating on its bow. Though there are areas of the bow with 19mm, the majority of the bow, specifically providing cover for the citadel, is 150mm. This means that a tier 5 battleship can actually bow tank every ship in the game under most scenarios. Further, due to the larger caliber of guns on battleships, and heavier armor overall, there is more of a propensity so go bow in against another battleship. This is where the overmatch mechanic is really worth understanding. The only 2 ships, per WarGaming's design, that are capable of overmatching the bow of (nearly) every ship are the Yamato and Mushashi with their 460mm guns; the largest guns in the game. Therefore, going bow in against them is ill advised. The only ships that are theoretically able to go bow in against them are the Kurfurst and the Frederick der Grosse as they have 60mm plating on their bows. Though there are places where the armor is only 32mm, the thickness that 460mm guns can overmatch, much like the Konig, this plating will prevent frontal citadels under most circumstances. Both cruisers and battleships are capable of bow tanking ships of the same type and tier. Knowing who can you go face to face with can be critical in certain battles, especially in competitive play. Once again, this is a particularly common tactic among battleships but cruisers can do it as well. For those that wish to know if you can be overmatched or overmatch a certain ship simply divide the ships gun caliber by 14.3. If your armor thickness is greater than that, you're good, if not, find another tactic. Similarly, you can multiply your armor thickness by 14.3 to find out the minimum caliber of gun required to overmatch your bow. Finally, if you don't know any of this info or just don't want to worry about doing the math, I've created a Google Sheet than can do the calculations for you or you can look up the ships by name. A disclaimer for this calculator though is I have not included clone ships, such as any of the ARP ships, which are clones of the Myoko and the Kongo. You can find the link below. If you have any trouble with it, find errors, or have some suggestions for improvement, please let me know. Bow In Calculator
  16. My views... BBs are in a good place, though its taken a bit to get here. WG did the French line right. HE slinging RN BBs has abated a bit and making life more pleasant. Older BBs are not aging well and 5 DD meta can be a bit obnoxious. Interested to hear your thoughts.
  17. 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
  18. Gascogne Meme Page

    I want to see you Gascogne memes. Please place them here. I'll get started with a lovely song created by @LittleWhiteMouse: ♫ Gosh it disturbs me to see you, Gascogne Stuck in development Hell Ev'ry ship here'd love to be you, Gascogne Knowing how well you will sell. ♫ There's no ship in port as admired as you You've got guns with all of the range ♪ When released folk will forget Richilieu Though we know you're subject to change. Ohh....♪ ♫ No one's slick as Gascogne No one's quick as Gascogne No one's belt is as incredibly thick as Gascogne! ♫ For there's no battleship half as manly ♪ Perfect, a pure paragon! You can ask any Bogue, Sims or Langley And they'll tell you whose team they prefer to be on! ♪ No one's been like Gascogne! A king pin like Gascogne! No other ship's gonna pad your wins like Gascogne! ♪ As a specimen, yes, she's intimidating! My what a ship, that Gascogne! Give five "hurrahs!" Give twelve "hip-hips!" ♫ Gascogne is the best ♪ Of all the battleships! ♫ No one fights like Gascogne! Douses lights like Gascogne! In a brawling match nobody bites like Gascogne! For there's no one as bouncy and tanky ♫ As you see I've got bow armour to spare ♪ Not a bit of her scraggly or scrawny That's right! And ev'ry last inch of her has got anti-air! ♪ No one hits like Gascogne Matches wits like Gascogne No one runs down and sinks the Tirpitz like Gascogne! She's espcially good at belt penetrating! BAM! Citadel hit for Gascogne! She's a work in pr'gress Anything can change This first peek may leave you surprised Over the next month You'll see all sorts of change Her statistics are not finalized! Oh, ahhh, wow! ♪ My what a ship, that Gascogne! No one shoots like Gascogne! ♫ Makes those beauts like Gascogne! Then goes stomping on PUBBies and n00bs like Gascogne! ♪ She hits 38 knots when accelerating! My what a ship, Gascogne! ♫
  19. French Battleships

    Early French battleships. (Merci David Lacroix)
  20. Favorite BB Line

    With French battleships coming 'soon', I thought I'd ask what is your favorite line to play?
  21. Dreadnaught Award

    What is the easiest way to get the Dreadnaught award? I need to use Tier 8 or up - so I have the Bismark. And I don't care necessarily about even winning the battle - just want to get the award in the context of a challenge and move on. Strategies/tactics? Thanks in advance.
  22. The following is a PREVIEW of some of the upcoming French Battleships which Wargaming very kindly provided me. The statistics discussed here are still being evaluated by Wargaming's developers and do not necessarily represent how the ship will appear when released. I was given access to the French Battleships a couple of days ago and played a handful of games on each. I took a moment to jot down my initial impressions and then cross-referenced them with port stats. Don't let the evaluations here fool you -- as the battleship meta becomes more and more fleshed out with offerings from different nations (and a glut of premiums besides), it's harder and harder for a ship to really stand out above the rest. Some of these ships were a lot of fun. A couple were awful, but they were still relatively competitive and dodged a worse rating. GARBAGE- The boat is unbalanced, not fun to play and weak. The ship desperately needs some buffs or some quality of life changes. Mehbote - An average ship. Has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't need buffs to be viable however she's not going to be considered optimal. Gudbote - A powerful ship, often one of the best ships at a given role within its tier. Usually considered optimal for a given task. OVERPOWERED - The boat is unbalanced and powerful. Typically she's either horrible to play against or she redefines the meta entirely. This reminded me a lot of playing Kawachi more than Nassau. She's got range problems and isn't terribly inspiring. Definitely not a keeper. I liked this ship a lot. She's a solid ship -- not one you'll feel the need to free-xp past at all. Her ten 305mm gun broadsides can't compete with Orion's monster 343mm, or the twelve 305mm off of Wyoming, Arkansas or Imperator Nikolai I, but she can hold her own. This is definitely a tier where the competition for "Gudbote" is fierce. It's no secret that I loooove ♥ World War One era Dreadnoughts. The ships look amazing and she plays alright too. She just didn't do anything to stand out from all of the other tier 5 dreadnoughts I've played. For looks alone, I am totally keeping this one. Lemme tell you a story of the first game I played in this. It was a tier 7 match. I found myself facing a Kaga and a Ryujo and our two CVs (and Independence and Hiryu) got outplayed in the first four minutes of the match. Things went quickly downhill from there. Normandie suffers from terrible firing arcs and one of the weirdest gun layouts you're ever going to see. Her AA power is also terrible. However, she's not without redeeming qualities. She's fast (28 knots), handles great (640m turning circle) and she's punching hard with twelve 340mm guns. This was enough to redeem her from a "GARBAGE" rating. Sixteen main battery guns of battleship caliber solve a lot of problems, lemme tell you. This thing is a beast and she looks as monstrous as she plays. This ship is fun to play. As she stands currently, a 30s reload on eight 380mm guns isn't terribly competitive at tier 8. The all-bow gun design is wonderful, though, and she's got some solid AA defense going for her too. Couple that with great speed and good handling, and she certainly could be upgraded to a "Gudbote" with just a tiny nudge to her rate of fire. A very special thank you goes out to Chobittsu for the fun artwork! Chobittsu put a lot of time into Alsace on the Public Test Server and I think it's safe to say it was love at first sight. Alsace is THE destination ship of the tech-tree line. The only thing holding her back is the smaller caliber of her main battery. Right, I know I'm going to eat some flak for this one, but hear me out. France is a versatile ship -- probably the best clean-up hitter you could want at tier 10. It's possible to get her reload time down to less than 20 seconds per volley after she's taken a bit of damage if you have the Adrenaline Rush skill on your commander. As good as she is, though, she's not going to topple Conqueror as a flame throwing nuisance, Yamato as queen of alpha strikes, Monatana for reliable damage to cruisers or Großer Kurfürst for raw tankiness. About the only place she really excels is AA power, which tops even Montana's. She's kinda relegated to the same role as Conqueror with 457mm guns. So she's a good ship, just not good enough in any one area to carve herself out a niche. Conclusions Overall, the French battleships are very comfortable and add some welcome variety to the battleship meta. Unlike the German and British battleships before them, this isn't a tech tree line that's going to shake things up. I personally feel we're going to see people gravitating to tiers 7, 8, 9 and 10 as the ships on offer here are fun and competitive, with Alsace being the overall winner when it comes to optimization. I'm personally hoping to see Richelieu get a little bit of love before release. She's not in a bad spot, but for such a famed ship, I do want to see her being one of the front runners at tier 8, especially given her unique design. Once again, I would like to thank Chobittsu for the paper-doll artwork. I had almost as much fun playing with them as I did the French battleships. If you enjoy my work, please consider supporting me by becoming my patron on Patreon.
  23. Yamato Over match mechanics

    Please watch the video and leave your comments down below with your opinion on what happens. https://youtu.be/vKgyyAOmc2Q
  24. Need Help: Iowa

    Hello! Yes it's me again, asking for help on yet another ship! (I suck, I know lol) This time, it's the Iowa. I mean, this is even worse than the slight struggles I had in the Khaba. Way worse. I found the NorCal fine, in fact very good. Some problems I've been having with the Iowa: 1. Bad rudder shift. It's no longer what I was used to in the NorCal, the ship turns like a hippo. (Disclaimer: I'm at Hull B) 2. VEEEEEEEEERY long ship profile, making it hard to turn and rendering my shoot-turn-shoot-turn strat in mah NorCal useless. 3. Supposedly better gun dispersion, but seems like a small upgrade at best? Not sure if I should spend the credits on the reload mod instead of accuracy (I got 5 overpens on a full broadside Neptune at 10km.... maybe I just suck at aiming?) 4. I probably ****ed up by using an AA spec captain (from my NorCal, of course) Here is what my Build is: Captain: Steven Seagal (15pt) 1pt - PT 2pt - EM 3pt - BFT 4pt - AFT, Manual AA (P.S. I do not have the dubs/elite XP to respec) Ship Upgrades: Propulsion (maybe I should take rudder shift XD) Arty mod 2 (the aiming mod) everything else is usual for a BB Finally, here are my NorCal and Iowa stats WOW! Under 40% winrate! only 816WTR!!!! I really need help......... (Although I guess my NorCal stats are not impressive anyways, so give me all the tips you got!) Thanks in advance!!!!! -supernovabn
  25. Hey guys, I got the Bismarck seasons ago and loved playing her even without an initial secondary build and max captain, but now that I got the Grobe, I have zero clue how to play it. If I use the 420's its overpens for dayz, and if I use the 406s I can barely get good shots into enemy BBs. Plus the thing is humongous and takes a lot of AP and fire dmg. I can't push with her the way I used to, and am at a loss of how to play her. What are your opinions on the optimal range of the Grobe? And should I go with one set of guns over the other? I have been running secondary build on this as my gun arcs and dispersion are too unreliable, do the unicums here favor one build over the other (gun build)? Thanks,