Search the Community

I stopped playing this game 2 years ago after the December 2020 captain skill rework. It nerfed battleship secondaries to the ground. BB players were no longer pushing, and instead just sat behind and sniped. It was toxic. I tried a few Co-op matches after Christmas 2022. I noticed that the captain skills are reworked again. There are some secondary battery talents returning. So how are battleship players been faring these days? Are secondary builds viable again? Do BBs push? Are the submarines making everything on the surface too quiet? Thanks in advance for your inputs!

So I've seen a couple of times that cruiser skills are kinda borked, and I would have to agree. One thing I've seen come up more than others is that there are no more secondary focused cruiser skills anymore. Well, maybe we could drum up some noise and ask for some minor changes to 2 skills to make it more palatable. First, neither of these effects gunnery; they explicitly say reload time, which has nothing to do with the gunners. But this can be changed! We can switch out the "reload speed when an enemy ship is in detectability range" with the Outnumbered perk's main battery dispersion buff, so it would read something like: And to facilitate a brawling incentive, we can add in the Carrier's reduced secondary dispersion buff as a passive effect. This should make the skill a more enticing pick for a secondary focused cruiser build, without changing the whole perk tree. The upgraded perk would look something like: And since we removed the reload buff from the previous skill to replace it with part of this skill, we can add the reload buff in here, so it would then read: I think this would definitely make a secondary built cruiser more valid in other game modes than co op, and increase the diversity of captain builds, without having to remake a whole perk tree. What do you think?

AKA, How Secondaries Actually Work, and Why They Should be Changed: Episode 3 Episode 1 / Episode 2 Disclaimer: Any mention of test ships are entirely based on my opinion of publicly-available statistics. Statistics are subject to change. Good day ladies and gentlemen! The weekend is nearly upon us, and Monday brings candy-mongering gremlins (formally known as children) to our doors. If you're like me, then you'll have a bag of tricks and keep all the treats for yourself ;) In this episode, I'm going to propose a set of changes I'd like to see to ships that aren't considered brawlers. Yes, that's right, this is not a "German BB secondaries suck" thread. This is about the other guys, the poor neglected ships that one should never consider building for secondaries. I think I can summarize the whole article with the following meme (credit goes to @SaiIor_Moon): Let's start with some background info that most seasoned players already know for the benefit of those who are less informed. There are four common secondary dispersion formulas used by most ships in the game. These are Standard, Russian 130mm, German, and Accurate. Most ships get the Standard formula. Examples include tech tree U.S., Japanese, Italian, U.K., and French battleships. The Russian 130mm dispersion formula is used strictly by Tier X Russian ships, and is more accurate than the Standard formula (tell me with a straight face that Russian bias isn't a thing). The German dispersion formula is used primarily by the tech tree German battleships (Nassau - Preussen) along with a few other ships like Pan-American battleship Atlantico. This formula supposedly helped German battleships retain the accuracy they had pre-commander-rework, although I've never been able to verify that's the case. Lastly, we have the Accurate dispersion formula, long-associated with ships like USS Massachussetts and the German battlecruisers (Von der Tann - Schlieffen). These are the most accurate secondaries found on any tech tree battleship, and are known for their ability to whittle away hitpoints in quick order. There are other secondary dispersion formulas used in-game, but they tend to be for specific ships like Italian cruiser X Napoli or the infamously laser-accurate German VIII Graf Zeppelin. Since these are limited to single ships, I'm not going to focus on them in this thread. Instead, I want to talk about the underdogs of the secondary battery world, the ones that use the Standard dispersion formula. Many of these ships have heavy secondary batteries (like the French and Italian battleships) but just lack in certain aspects to make them even remotely viable for building into. The biggest problem is accuracy. Standard accuracy sucks, a lot. Without any modifiers (captain skills and upgrades), secondaries with the Standard dispersion formula have 23% worse dispersion than the German formula. It's a staggering 42% worse than the Accurate formula, which is what makes the likes of Schlieffen so powerful as a secondary brawler. "But Murrel," you say, "23% worse dispersion than the Germans isn't too bad." Oh, but it is. See, it's not really dispersion that matters here. Your secondaries will spatter an area of several square kilometers when they first start firing. Reining in the maximum dispersion helps a little, but it's how maximum dispersion affects the impact area that is important. To better understand what I'm saying, let's look at some pictures illustrating this subject. I've chosen one battleship from each of the four main secondary dispersion formulas, showing their typical secondary battery impact at a range of 10km. Standard dispersion (feat. Montana): Russian 130mm dispersion (feat. Kremlin): German dispersion (feat. Preussen): Accurate dispersion (feat. Schlieffen): Notice how the horizontal dispersion (the shorter dimension) gets smaller and smaller as the accuracy formula improves? Comparing these dimensions, it doesn't look like there's much difference in the horizontal parameters. The vertical dispersion (the longer dimension) is insignificant as it is a function of shell impact velocity and angle. Notice how Kremlin has worse vertical dispersion than Montana despite using a better accuracy formula - this is because Kremlin has ridiculously high shell velocity and low drag on its secondaries (best in class in both parameters), but that's a discussion for another thread. The point I'm trying to make is that any given reduction in maximum dispersion will have an even larger effect on reducing the impact area of the secondary shells. For example, Kremlin's maximum secondary dispersion is 14% better than Montana's. However, this 14% reduction in maximum dimensions means that the area of the ellipsoid (the impact area) of the Russian 130mm secondaries is actually 26% smaller than Montana's. That's a significant amount, considering that increases your chance of hitting the target by 35%. Now let's compare Standard dispersion to German dispersion: a 23% increase in maximum dispersion results in a 41% smaller impact area, which means hitting your target 69% more often. That's huge. Last, but certainly not least, let's look at the Accurate formula. The maximum dispersion is 42% better than the Standard, which equals a 66% smaller impact area, and a 97% higher chance of hitting the target. Yes, it's that good. So what's the takeaway? That German battlecruisers are the kings of brawling and building Montana for secondaries is a cardinal sin? If all remains as it is, yes. I'd like to believe there's a chance that may change, someday, hence this post. When the last commander rework happened, it came with a promise that it would allow a diversification of builds. While this may be true for some classes of ships, as a battleship main I can quite comfortably say that survivability/tank build is king. I'm not complaining about German battleships being terrible at brawling, nor am I bemoaning about the less accurate secondary builds that have been given to us since the rework. Thing is, German BBs got a band-aid to their secondary battery accuracy to help mitigate the effects of the reworked Manual Secondaries skill. Every other ship didn't, so running a secondary build on most other battleships became even worse than they already were. It's not too late to fix it. So how would I suggest changing secondaries? Here's the tldr version for y'all: Standardization of all secondary battery ranges. Give all ships of all classes the German/French ranges. Buff the Standard dispersion formula. Replace it with the Russian 130mm formula (or even the German formula). Case specific buffs: rebalance specific ships' secondaries depending on their performance (i.e. reduce Conqueror's reload from 6.67s to 4s - it only has 8 guns per side) Secondary builds for cruisers: allow them to take a manual secondary skill identical to battleships, but don't allow them to take a skill that improved range. Meme secondary builds for destroyers, aircraft carriers, and yes, even submarines. 1. Standardization of secondary battery ranges. The gameplay meta is always changing. With more and more ships and classes promoting longer-ranged gameplay, having poor secondary range is not good. Just look at the secondary-focused Japanese battleship IX Iwami. It has secondaries that use the Accurate formula with good penetration, decent fire chance, and high rate-of-fire, but really needs more range to be relevant. I propose that all battleships and cruisers receive the same range as that already used by French and German cruisers and battleships. Ideally, I would like to see all aircraft carriers, destroyers, and even submarines get the same buff, if for no other reason than for the memes. I mean, secondary Haida is only for cool kids, right? I'd run secondary builds on some of my aircraft carriers as a means of self defense if they weren't saddled with despicably short range. This change will make brawling more comfortable, and the added range won't hurt destroyers as shell travel time will make it easy to dodge at longer ranges. Some ships might need further tuning - discussed below in "case-specific adjustments". 2. Buff the standard dispersion formula. This will allow players who wish to run secondary builds on unconventional ships to be rewarded for the expenditure of upgrades and captain skills. This will lead to the diversification in builds that we were promised when the captain skill rework occurred. At the very least, all battleships that currently utilize the Standard dispersion formula should have it replaced with the Russian 130mm formula. As stated above, this will result in -14% maximum dispersion, -26% impact area, and a 35% higher chance of hitting the target. Personally, I would even go so far as to suggest testing replacing the Standard and Russian 130mm formulas with the German dispersion formula. Again, as said above, this would equal -23% maximum dispersion, -41% impact area, and a 69% higher chance of hitting the target. The thing is, unless one chooses to build into them, German secondaries without any modifiers (like running a tank-build Preussen) can't hit anything. So, buffing secondary accuracy isn't going to make a main-battery/tank build Montana OP overnight - it will still have terrible secondaries when not built for them. This will further reward players who wish to have fun with trying out different builds and just have a good time in their secondary spec' Montana. It will also help ships to better defend themselves from submarines, although submarines aren't usually sitting at or near the surface when spotted within secondary battery range. Furthermore, buffing tech tree ships with standard dispersion does not detract from special secondary-focused premium ships like Massachusetts. Ships like her will still be hands-down the best brawlers at their tier, and worth every dollar. 3. Case-specific secondary buffs. Certain ships are just pathetically underpowered when it comes to their secondary firepower. The first that comes to mind for me is the mainline British battleships. From tier VII through to tier X, all of them have the exact same secondary battery. Same damage, same barrel count, same reload, same everything. Having 6.67s reload on 8 guns per broadside that can only penetrate 22mm of armor is really disappointing, and they're basically there as ornaments. In this case, I would buff the reload slightly per tier, ending with a 3.5-4s reload on the Conqueror so that they could actually be relevant. The Italian battleships are another sad case. Their issue is the lack of penetration on their 90mm guns. I would start by giving them the range and accuracy buffs listed above, and if their fire chance isn't enough to make them worth building into, I would suggest increasing the high-explosive penetration on the 90mm guns to 1/4 caliber, giving them 23mm of penetration. Alternatively, many have already suggested giving them SAP ammunition; such changes would likely require more extensive testing, but it's certainly an intriguing prospect. 4. Secondary builds for cruisers. I would like to see the return of secondary builds for cruisers. I would suggest the addition of a manual secondaries skill identical to the one already used by the battleship skill tree, replacing a less-popular skill (or adding even more skills for more diversity). Such a change would likely mean nerfing the base accuracy of X Napoli, but the result would be a net-zero change in accuracy (maybe even a slight buff) post-rework. It would also mean that the upcoming dockyard ship, IX Admiral Schroder, would be a viable secondary cruiser (see Episode 1 for that discussion). I would not recommend giving cruisers a skill that further enhances their secondary range, as this would lead to the possibility of stealth secondary builds, which are probably best left in Pandora's box of bad ideas. 5. Meme secondary builds for destroyers, aircraft carriers, and submarines. I think this could lead to some pretty funny (but not optimal) captain builds. Secondary-build Haida, here I come! The point WG should take away from this is that making secondary builds possible for more ships will lead to more players trying new builds. This costs credits to purchase the new upgrades, doubloons to reset commander skills, and doubloons to remove upgrades. Add on that this may entice players to spend more time than they normally would playing the game, testing out new builds... it'll make money. And that, my friends, is what a games company is all about. Summary: I would love to see standard secondary dispersion be buffed. Better accuracy and standardizing secondary ranges for each tier will make brawling more comfortable for ships that previously couldn't dream of running secondary builds. Allowing all classes in-game to run secondary builds could lead to some funny captain builds, and good times all around. In short: If you've managed to read all the way to the end, congratulations! You made it! I apologize for the long post... I didn't think it would be that long when I started it... 3 hours ago. Please let me know whether you like or dislike the proposals I've made, whether there is anything you would change, or if I missed something that you would like me to comment on. Also, if you liked this post, please consider checking my previous post about secondaries and the upcoming dockyard ship Admiral Schroder in my previous two posts (links below). Take care folks! Episode 1 / Episode 2

I covered Admiral Schroder back in September when the ship was first announced. I was wary of her secondary performance, since she only has base German battleship dispersion on her secondaries. Since there are no secondary accuracy-enhancing skills available for cruisers, the only way to improve this dispersion is through the secondary battery modification 1, which decreases dispersion by 20%. I won't go into the details here, but if you'd like to read more, here's a link to that original post where I discuss the specifics: Now, I want to be perfectly clear that I did not breach my NDA agreement with WoWs - in fact, I've never played the ship. The opinions and statistics I mentioned were entirely based on the devblogs that were publicly available, and were not influenced by others who had played the ship. When WoWs released an article outlining the now live update, they claimed Admiral Schroder had "powerful, long-range, and accurate secondaries." I commented on this, because I felt that this was a misleading description of the ship. A ship which many will likely spend a significant sum to obtain under the impression that this is some sort of German streusel-flavored Napoli. When I directly expressed my concerns to a WoWs employee, the response I received was as follows: To which I replied: The argument this person is trying to make is that having many more secondary guns and poor accuracy is akin to having fewer, more accurate secondary guns. To be clear, I understand the reasoning for the balance decisions, but I disagreed (and still do) that having a high rate-of-fire with mediocre accuracy did not make the ship "accurate". It just increases its chances of hitting something. The response I got was a little disparaging: Now, I'm not trying to drag this person through the mud. I've deliberately left their name out of it for that reason. I respect this person, but we disagree on a few things, the definition of accuracy being one of them. I'm not playing semantics. I'm in my final year of an engineering degree, and I know the definition of accuracy, volume, flux, etc. One could define the rate-of-fire through the dispersion ellipse of secondary guns to be the flux, or volume of fire, while accuracy is the ability to consistently hit targets. I've done the math. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to secondaries. This ship does not have accurate secondaries. Let's look at a very, very small sample size from a couple Community Contributors who posted replays in which they took the Admiral Schroder out into battle with a secondary build: 129 hits for 1001 shells fired = 12.9% hit rate. 76 hits for 613 shells fired = 12.4% hits. 155 hits for 1682 shells fired = 9.2% hits. 158 hits for 568 shells fired = 27.8% hits. This is kinda an outlier, since the CC was basically at point-blank range for most of the time. 93 hits for 670 shells fired = 13.9% hits. 51 hits for 464 shells fired = 11.0% hits. Despite all evidence to the contrary, this is what's on the WoWs website this morning: Yep, still says accurate. 12% hits is not accurate. I'm not saying she should be buffed; I'm saying her description needs to be changed. Just say "mediocre accuracy is compensated by a high rate-of-fire." Easy fix. Is running a secondary build the best way to play the Schroder? That's what I've heard. Doesn't make her secondaries good, though. Personally, if you want a brawling cruiser and are going to spend money on a ship, I recommend the Napoli. Its secondaries are twice as accurate and hit pretty hard, and her main battery guns are more lethal. Also, she's Tier X. I'm not saying don't buy the Schroder - it's your money, and who am I to tell you what to do with it - but I hope that this post will help save some folks from investing in a ship that isn't as advertised. Thanks for reading, and take care, ~Murrel

AKA, How Secondaries Actually Work, and Why They Should be Changed: Episode 4 Episode 1 / Episode 2 / Episode 3 Good day ladies and gentlemen! With the news of Soviet submarines receiving... mixed responses, I decided to give everyone something else they love to talk about - aircraft carriers! Ok, so maybe CVs aren't the most popular class in the game, but I hope you'll agree that this topic is going to be worthwhile. Let's talk CV secondaries. Many of you probably remember when the developers standardized cruiser and battleship secondary battery firing ranges by nation and tier: German and French battleships and cruisers got longer range, while every other nation's ships got slightly shorter ranges. Overall, the non-German and non-French ships did receive a buff to range. I believe that this was a good change - it makes it much easier to remember the secondary firing ranges of the common secondary-built battleships. However, if you read my last post (Episode 3) you'll know that I personally think that the range on all battleships and cruisers should be standardized, amongst other changes, but I won't get into that. If you want to check that out, I have provided the link above. So what about every other class' secondaries? Well, there are a grand total of five (5) destroyers with secondaries. There's the Tier II Japanese Umikaze, Tier VII Commonwealth Huron and Haida (both tribal class destroyers with the same secondary turret), Tier VIII Commonwealth Orkan, and USSR Tier VIII Kiev. Their ranges are 2km, 4km, 4km, and 5km, respectively. So, yeah, not much to talk about there. So far, both Tier VI and VIII feature submarines with secondaries, although there just aren't many subs in the game to make discussing them worthwhile. Yet. That just leaves aircraft carriers. Eight separate nations now have aircraft carriers, with five full tech trees (Japan, USA, Germany, UK, and USSR). Many players know that German aircraft carriers come with very accurate secondary guns, and when built for them can put up a fierce resistance against lightly-armored opponents caught within their reach. The ever-popular Graf Zeppelin boasts the most accurate secondary battery in the game, and can deal immense amounts of damage in the right scenario. But what about every other CV? Well, there just isn't anything consistent, except for one thing. Tiers IV, VI, VIII, and X of each nation have no standard range - they're all over the map - except for super-CVs. Yes, that's right, every super-CV released (and to be released) thus far has an impressive 7.3km base range. This might seem meaningless right now, but by the end of this post you'll understand why super-CVs receiving "special attention" is so ridiculous. Let's start with some basic stats: the current ranges of CV secondary batteries. Tier Germany U.K. U.S.A. Japan USSR France Italy IV 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 VI 5 4 4.5 4 5 5.6 VIII 6.625 4.5 4.5 4.5 6.6 6.625 X 6.85 5 5 5 7.3 XI 7.3 7.3 7.3 Outliers Graf Zeppelin 6.25 Hornet 6.6 There are so many things that irk me about these numbers. First of all, zero consistency. Second, Graf Zeppelin has worse range than some of the other Tier VIII CVs?! Hornet gets 6.6km base range versus Lexington's paltry 4.5 km (literally 2.1 km = 46.7% more range). Third, what's with the 6.6km versus 6.625km secondary ranges? This makes no sense... there is absolutely no value in an extra 25m range. Fourth, what possible reason could there be for the perfectly balanced Nakhimov having the best secondary battery range at Tier X at 7.3km? Oh yeah, it has the Russian 130mm secondary dispersion (see Episode 3 for details), which is better than the standard dispersion that everything that isn't German gets. So yeah, best range and second-best accuracy at Tier X is on a Russian aircraft carrier. Why am I not surprised? Now, let's look at the super-CV situation. Notice how the UK, USA, and WIP Japanese super CVs all have 7.3km range. That's 2.3km better than their Tier X predecessors in every single case. I hate to be cynical, but I can't help but feel like this is clear evidence that WG knows that 5km secondaries is trash in high-tier games, which is why Nakhimov also has best-in-class range. This 7.3km range is not just some random number drawn out of a hat. WG have deliberately chosen this number so that there is the smallest gap possible between a ships minimum detection radius and it's maximum secondary battery firing range. Taking the concealment module (-10% detection radius) and the Hidden Menace skill (-15% detection radius) and using all secondary range skills and upgrades means that ALL three super-CVs and Nakhimov can achieve an 11km firing range and have 850 meters or less distance between their minimum surface detection radius and maximum secondary battery range. To be clear, I'm not complaining about super-CVs having decent secondary battery range - I'm complaining about the abysmal ranges of the UK, USA, and Japanese CVs from Tier IV to X. The secondary skills in the captain skill tree only exist to appease German CV players. When was the last time anyone saw a secondary-spec Implacable? Trust me, I was crazy enough to try it, and it's beyond awful. So what's the point of my rant? Well, I'd like to see some sort of standardization of CV secondary ranges across all tiers. This presents some balance issues, but nothing game-breaking. I propose that all nations' CVs use the following base ranges: Tier Range (km) IV 4.5 VI 5.6 VIII 6.6 X 6.85 XI 7.3 This means a nerf of a whole 25 meters to the likes of Aquila and A. Parseval. Oh, the humanity! This also presents an issue with Audacious. She has access to a legendary module that provides a -15% detection bonus, and stacks with the concealment upgrade (-10% detection) and Hidden Menace (-15%) for a total of 9.31km. Boosting her secondary battery range from 5.0km to 6.85km would allow her to have stealth secondaries. Whilst I would love to see that in action, it's probably best for the game that this idea dies in a cold, dark place. Still, imagine being able to kite a cruiser while keeping it spotted the entire time with your planes, peppering it with HE shells! In Audacious' case, I think that this could be easily fixed with a simple nerf to secondary range built into the legendary upgrade. -12.5% would suffice, but -15% would probably just be easier, and still gives a full stealth Audacious a gap of 0.25km between detection radius and maximized secondary range. Easy. The only other area where my proposed "standardized" ranges cause issues is with Ryujo and Shokaku. Japanese aircraft carriers characteristically have excellent stealth for their size, and so buffing their secondary ranges would result in both of the aforementioned ships being able to run stealth secondary builds. This could be fixed by increasing their surface detection radii slightly, which shouldn't affect their battle performance significantly. Add 0.4km to Ryujo's surface detection radius and 1.05km to Shokaku's, and voila, problem solved! Don't worry, both ships are still plenty stealthy: 10 and 13.1km base, respectively (versus their current 9.6km and 12.01km). "But wait," you say, "doesn't that mean Nakhimov will be nerfed?" Yes, yes it does. Isn't it great? I would like to follow up this post with a quick note that I don't think buffing CV secondary ranges is all that is required to make running them on non-German CVs plausible. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think that the Standard secondary dispersion formula needs to be buffed so that they can actually hit something. Otherwise, it's just fireworks and a waste of skill points. I also want to point out that I do not think this is a game-breaking, must-address-immediately issue. This can wait a year, for all I care - it's not hurting anyone right now, but I would like to see changes come to secondaries at some point in the future. I don't want to have secondaries be an "automatic click-and-win" button (there's no skill or fun in that), but in their current iteration everything that isn't German or an American premium secondary BB could really use some love to increase ship build diversity. WG, please consider the suggestions I've made above and the discussion to follow!!! Well, that's all for now. Thanks for reading, and I hope you at least found this discussion amusing, if nothing else. If you like what you see in this post, please consider checking my previous post about secondaries and the upcoming dockyard ship Admiral Schroder in my previous two posts (links below). Take care folks! Episode 1 - Why Admiral Schroder is Doomed to Fail as a Secondary Brawler Episode 2 - Manual Secondary Skill for BBs - Misleading Info Episode 3 - Let's Make Secondary Gun Battery Builds Great

Anyone else notice when swapping Lutjens from say Sharnhorst to Odin that the range of the secondaries does not change with the captains skills ? Today I noticed that before I swapped commanders the range for secondaries was 7.9km. After swapping Lutjens into the Sharnhorst the secondaries remained the same, at 7.9km. Anyone else notice this ? Ok, after more investigation, the ship stats were not keeping up with the changes. Had to go to a different ship then back to see the correct values. This may be an issue.

Vejo muitos jogadores reclamando que batalhas a curta distância está morto. Por causa o spam de PE é muito opressivo, porta-aviões acabam com a brincadeira e etc. São pontos válidos, mas também os jogadores que usam navios brawlers na maioria das vezes não sabem o que estão fazendo e tentam fazer isso nas piores horas possíveis ou pensam que se não tiver um alvo no alcance das secundárias do seu BB a todo instante é uma partida sem sentido e brawls é irrelevante. Por isso que vim aqui no fórum para postar um guia de algumas coisas que devem ser levadas em consideração antes de se aproximar do oponente. O difícil não é a batalha a curta distância, mas sim a tentativa de se aproximar, por isso ciclones favorecem navios brawlers, porque o perigo de se aproximar é quase inexistente, com exceção do número de navios envolvidos, então vamos ao guia em si. ANTES de se aproximar: Não force batalha a curta distância nos primeiros cinco minutos, exceto em situações muito específicas, ainda tem muitos navios flutuando e alguns que não foram detectados nenhuma vez, poupe o seu HP pra ter vantagem na metade e no final da partida. Observe e interprete o minimapa. Veja se o seu time tem vantagem numérica no flanco; se tem a vantagem numérica, observe quais tipos de navios cada um tem de cada time ali e o HP de cada; procure pelas últimas posições conhecidas dos DDs inimigos (principalmente aqueles com torpedos fortes); observe se o time inimigo não consegue fugir, em outras palavras, teriam que fazer alguma curva de 180 graus e eventualmente expondo a lateral vulnerável do navio ou algum terreno que bloqueia a rota de fuga deles; preste atenção onde o CV inimigo está mais ativo se tiver algum na partida. Não precisa ter todos esses elementos a favor, no entanto, quanto mais deles estiverem, mais seguro. Sobre o seu navio: garanta que todos os seus consumíveis estejam disponíveis caso ainda tenha cargas deles ou, caso o tempo esteja curto, ao menos os consumíveis relacionados a sobrevivência prontos para o uso; planeje uma rota com antecedência que evite que fique em algum tipo foco cruzado, caso tenha, faça questão de devastar algum dos lados na forma de concentração de disparo do time ou torpedos para lidar com um dos lados da forma mais rápida possível, de preferência o mais fraco que cai mais rápido. Se tiver escolta ou algum consumível a bordo com radar ou hidro para evitar emboscadas é um bônus, mas isso não será problema se interpretou bem a situação. Durante a aproximação: Use a cobertura das ilhas para se aproximar sem ser detectado ou para limitar o número de navios que podem atirar contra a sua embarcação, logo, é mais perigoso fazer isso em águas abertas, mas ainda pode ser fácil dependendo das circunstâncias. Lembre que uma vez que está cometido ao push, só tem duas formas que isso vai terminar: o time inimigo será aniquilado ou você será... tentar fugir do nada provavelmente vai resultar no segundo caso, rotas de fugas viáveis num brawl são raras (geralmente envolve um ilhas com formatos específicos). Mantenha a rota que tinha em mente e também seja flexível para se adaptar a situação, mas evite ficar longe dos objetivos do mapa, principalmente com navio lento. Foque o alvo que tem o maior potencial de drenar o seu HP, não necessariamente o navio mais fácil de afundar, se ele tiver te ignorando melhor ainda, claro que isso pode não ser válido em outras situações, como o seu time precisando desesperadamente de pontos; Se posicione lado a lado com o seu time, assim um alvo não fica exposto na frente sozinho sendo focado pelo time inimigo, entretanto verifique se os outros navios tem HP o suficiente ou se o cruzador tem algum tipo de blindagem, por outro lado não se acanhe caso eles fiquem receosos de irem em frente, apesar de ajudar com eles juntos com o seu navio não dependa de jogadores do modo aleatório. Curta distância Essa é a parte mais fácil, então não vou entrar em muitos detalhes, com exceção de um: como evitar colisões ou como causá-las em última instância. Para evitar uma colisão, se o seu navio for mais manobrável que o oponente tente usar a sua habilidade para emparelhar com o navio inimigo, bônus: mire os canhões com antecedência na sua broadside para acertar o inimigo assim que os navios estejam lado a lado, assim as suas torres não precisam acompanhar o movimento do alvo no driveby; caso a sua citadela for invulnerável a curta distância (turtleback ou hitbox submarina), não hesite em expor a lateral pra evitar a colisão, é melhor tomar 20k de dano do que o navio inteiro e na situação, bônus: tente nocautear as torres do oponente antes disso; e o mais difícil seria se o seu navio for menos manobrável que o oponente, vc terá que afundar ele antes que colida ou usar a habilidade pessoal com o navio. Para causar uma colisão, nunca exponha a sua lateral e terá que prever a movimentação do alvo; não atire cedo demais, isso dará tempo para o alvo lançar torpedos e/ou expor a lateral para evitar a colisão e usar todo o seu poder de fogo contra o seu navio com HP baixo, use os seus canhões carregados como intimidação para forçar o alvo numa trajetória mais previsível. Caso planeje colidir contra o navio 'X', se o HP atual dele for mais baixo que 80% do seu HP base máximo (bandeira de colisão em consideração), não gaste as suas salvas contra alvo 'X', caso queira fazer mais dano, foque outro navio. Tem mais coisas para levar em consideração, mas deixaria o texto mais carregado que já está. Possivelmente você vai pensar que isso tudo é muito difícil, mas ficaria surpreso a quantidade de oportunidades que os times de aleatórias permitem que você faça tudo isso que eu falei sem grandes problemas. Edição extra: se o inimigo estiver vindo até você, basta esperar

AFK sub gets a secondary kill... That's a new one. Still though, subs OP! ;) I also bagged both CVs, but that's because Asashio's AA is soooo potent - and not at all OP. The sub got his kill pretty late in the match, if you care to watch I've uploaded the replay (caution supposedly there's some vulnerability with replays): 20220607_064439_PJSD598-Black-Asashio_22_tierra_del_fuego.wowsreplay

I've been combing through data-mine resources for my Agincourt review, specifically looking at secondary accuracy (secondaries are an important feature on Agincourt). While doing so, I started cataloguing and doing the math for secondary horizontal dispersion. It was pretty eye opening. To date, I've found seven distinct dispersion types. This is by no means an exhaustive list but it should provide players with an idea of how "good" their secondary guns are on any given ship in the game. See below for an explanation on each category. Standard FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 57 ] + 30 } Includes most secondaries in the game barring the ones listed below. Soviet 130mm BL109A FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 49 ] + 30 } The secondaries on the tier X Soviet battleships and cruisers have slightly reduced dispersion. This includes Moskva, Petropavlovsk, Stalingrad, Kremlin and Slava German Battleships FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 45 ] + 30 } German battleships received a buff with the commander skill rework. It includes the following ships: German tech tree battleships at tier VII+ The premiums Prinz Eitel Friedrich, Scharnhorst, Scharnhorst B, Tirpitz, Tirpitz B, Odin and Pommern Accurate FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 33 ] + 30 } Long associated with Massachusetts, this dispersion type has existed for a while and is present on a long list of ships. German tech tree aircraft carriers. The premium & reward ships: Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Massachusetts B, Georgia, Ohio, Agincourt and Max Immelmann The casemate mounts (only!) of Iron Duke, Warspite, Mutsu, Nagato, Ashitaka, Hyuga, Amagi, Kii, Ignis Purgatio and Ragnarok Exceptions There are a handful of exceptions out there. In increasing order of accuracy they are: FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 27 ] + 30 } - Wichita's and Florida's 127mm/38 Mod 30 mounts specifically, not any of the others. FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 12 ] + 30 } - Pensacola FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 8.4 ] + 48 } - Graf Zeppelin & Arkansas Beta. Note this is the same horizontal dispersion calculation for "battlecruiser" main battery guns, like Graf Spee, Thunderer and Georgia. Depending on how much of a keener I'm being, I may add to this list as I find more. If there's a specific ship you think should be on here, give me a shout. I'll take a look.

Perhaps a bias opinion, but I think they should leave secondaries and aa unbreakable. I have been loving my secondary ships again and I'm going to miss them all over again. If I may provide some rational (by no means exhaustive just my experience): The best way to play secondary ships is to play mid to long range at the beginning of a match or close to an island. Once the dust starts to settle you can strategically push in and send your secondaries ablaze. Having the secondaries unbreakable rewarded this. You didn't have to worry about them breaking at the beginning of the match and knew they'd be ready later. Just sucks knowing secondary builds are going to be weaker again. I know it's not going to happen but I felt that I should at least say my peace...

Alright, full disclosure: I'm a massive fan of these two ships. Combined I have 450+ games between the two of them. They are responsible for some of my best memories of WOWS since Open Beta. Despite the awful things WG has done to powercreep these two ships into oblivion, I refuse to not take them out from time to time. Do these ships perform like this all the time? Of course not. Neither of these games were easy, and the Bismarck game was a top-tier game that thanks to potato teammates was a HARD carry in order to win (Tirpitz was T9), but damn when these ships work they're still some of the most fun I can have, and remind me why I've been playing this game all these years. In any case, I guess my point is that if you enjoy certain ships, just play them. You might just have a good time. The build I'm running is a 21 point maximum meme secondary build, for anyone curious.

One of the most frustrating issues when attempting to make use of secondary builds is the fact that a dd can smoke up and sit there for minutes firing, torping etc and as a BB your options are limited to charging in or blindly firing your main guns. blind firing wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that its literally the purpose of secondary guns. I propose a consumable that would let you target an area for your secondary guns to blast away at for 30 seconds or so, maybe with an increased rate of fire or something.

Am currently grinding the French BB line, am at tier 7 at the moment, Jean Bart is one of my favorite ships in the game. I'm hyped to get to the Alsace. What's the best secondary build for her? I was thinking something like: PT, PM, AR, BoS/SI, AFT, CE and MFCSA and then secondary range upgrade in slot 3. Should I run BFT over BoS or SI? Or swap out Main Battery Reload in slot 6 for the 20% reload decrease on the secondaries? Should I ignore MFCSA entirely and go for fire prevention instead? Auxiliary Armaments upgrade? LMK what you guys think! Any advice on the best combos would be greatly appreciated. Looking forward to playing Alsace in the near future.

I have been using the IMPROVED SECONDARY BATTERY AIMING SKILL for nearly all my games. I play for 2 to 3 hours a day. The skill does not work. I've played games activating and deactivating this skill and can see NO change in my secondary aim whatsoever. I think it is broken.

In this rework, it was known that Siegfried was one of the ships that got hit the most on her performance. Not only losing Fire mitigation skills but also the famed secondaries build, leaving her with only her absurd accuracy to still be relevant. But now that I enter, I find out all cruisers' secondaries range was raised. Just in case, I demounted the Aiming System Mod1 (+5% to secondaries range) and the ship had no captain. 4.3 km for T5 (4.0 km previously) 5.0 km for T6 (4.5 km previously) 5.6 km for T7 (5.0 km previously) 6.6 km for T8 (5.0 km previously) 7.0 km for T9 (5.0 km previously) 7.3 km for T10 (5.0 km previously) There are some exceptions, as Agir and Siegfried have 8.3 km base range, same as Kurfurst (Agir had 5.3 km stock, Siegfried had 7.6km) and 10.0 km with a full secondaries build now. And Graf Spee have 5.6 km base range, same as Bayern. Was this intended? Or was it mentioned anywhere? Because I only remember WG mentioning Battleship secondaries when modifying their range. PD: digging around and comparing, those are the same range as the BBs of the respective tier. Let´s see if this was intended or (most likely) a bug, but that doesn't explain the exceptions

To buff Graf Zeppelin. Although, they are only 2 very specific buffs. 1) Increase Secondaries Range . Why? because now we have the main german CV tree, where the tier 8 (A. Parseval), features secondaries base range of 7 km. So Indeed, Zeppelin's sec. range must be buffed now to 7 km. and 2) Increase its base concealment: Same case, A. Parseval features a base concealment of 13.5 km. ; Zeppelin's current base concealment is 16.2km. therefore, it should be buffed to 14 km (or even 13.8 km). I know that there would be some "naysayers": So, dont forget, that Tirptiz secondaries where buffed after german BB's debut. Tnx for your attention.

All I can really say is that the guns do work but they visually don't rotate client side. I have done all the normal things such as a general repair, system check followed by going to support, and going as far as to re-download the game and the issue persists. While I do have mods installed as of a few months ago the issue started when Azuma was released, and it has been grating on my sanity when I don't manage to ignore it.

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/85 By my calculations you can now get the range of the secondary batteries to 8.3 km with SBM1, AFT, and the flag consumable. That is pretty respectable for T5. Given her main battery limitations, It looks like the best way to equip this ship will be similar to the MA/GA/OH. This is convenient if you already have a high skill captain for one of these ships.

The continuation from the topic thread here In today's feature, I am not the star of the replay... Its the red fleet's DD. You the viewer, as you watch, just keep an eye on our CV... That is it.. Also, like the last post.. This is not a discussion on spotting. This is not a rant against CVs or the drivers who play them. This is meant to show how power creep adds to the toxicity to the in-game experience.Its also meant for us to think, should this meta be allowed in the game? IMO, The disproportional DMG dealt by CVs ( or any other ship class for that matter), creates a lot of the toxicity in a match. Enjoy! 20200826_223115_PASC707-Flint_46_Estuary.wowsreplay *REMEMBER* You can speed up the replay by pressing the INS button.

I recently got Erich Loewenhardt and I've played a few games with it. So far it is a fun CV to play, I don't have enough battles with her to give an overall impression. At any rate, I was curious & decided to test E. Loewenhardt's secondaries vs. her tech-tree counterpart, the Weser. Both have 5 x 2 105mm guns, but E. Loewenhardt has additional 8 x 2 150's in the hull, 4 turrets on each side. The test is as follows: both ships are taken into a training battle vs. a stationary Fuso bot. Both Weser & Loewenhardt have the secondary battery ship module, with a secondary signal mounted. I used my Graf Zeppelin captain, who has BFT, & AFT. Both ships secondaries reach 7.6 km fully spec'd. The carrier was approx. 7km away from the Fuso for each test & all secondary guns were able to fire on target. A timer was started when the secondaries began firing & stopped when the Fuso was sank. Each test was repeated 3 times for both Weser & Loewenhardt (6 tests total), to get an average of three. Here are the results: WESER vs. FUSO (Averages): Secondary Battery: Hits - 223.6 Shots fired - 1,037.3 Damage - 16,641.3 Fires: 4.3 Damage Caused by Fire: 40,458.6 Time to Sink: 5 min. 11.3 sec. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ERICH LOEWENHARDT vs. FUSO (Averages): Secondary Battery: Hits - 147.3 Shots fired - 1,082.6 Damage - 14,517.3 Fires: 4.6 Damage Caused by Fire: 42,582.6 Time to Sink: 4 min. 2.6 sec. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For every 4-5 shots fired by Weser, 1 would hit the target. (4.63) For every 7-8 shots fired by E. Loewenhardt, 1 would hit the target. (7.35) Based on the data & observations from the testing, E. Loewenhardt does not have the improved secondary dispersion & accuracy that Weser & the tech tree German CVs have. It seems to have standard secondary dispersion patterns, like other nation's CVs have. However, Loewenhardt was able to sink the Fuso quicker than Weser. Weser relies on her 5 x 2 105's, which pen 26mm by default. Loewenhardt's additional 150's can pen 38mm of armor. Fuso's central deck armor is 36mm, while her bow, stern & side plating are all 26mm (not including her side casemate armor, which is 152mm). Weser could only pen Fuso's superstructure, side plating, bow & stern, whereas Loewenhardt's additional 150's could pen all that plus the deck armor. So, in conclusion, E. Loewenhardt doesn't have the improved secondary dispersion the tech-tree German CVs get, but having the additional 150's makes up for the accuracy difference. I believe this test would go a lot differently vs. a smaller cruiser or destroyer instead of a Fuso, Weser might win in those cases. Any comments or questions are welcome! - FairWindsFollowingSeas [NA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq7HHcaeKao Another short cinematic I made. For some reason, the free camera in the replays doesn't allow zooming in, so have fun viewing this fully zoomed out footages lmbo

Just started (2+ weeks ago) playing WoWs, and I'm doing coop games to learn the basics. On a specific load screen (after queue screen; the map screen) the WoWs designers give this advice: "Maneuver by changing your speed and course to throw off the enemy's aim." Now, I can understand this advice when playing against a human opponent, but against a bot? Especially bots secondaries... I'd think it much more likely that "chance to hit" would rely on some simple mathematical formula using maybe distance away, speeds and size of ship being fired upon, but maneuvering? Would a certain "basic amount" of maneuvering (over time) affect the bot's aim a certain amount? Would "more maneuvering" during a specific amount of time throw off the bot's aim more than "less maneuvering?" Is maneuvering BOTH to the right and left better than only to one side? Does changing SPEED throw off the bot's aim MORE than changing COURSE? Or do they affect it equally? So, how does the computer compare the two? Does changing your speed A LOT have the equivalent effect of changing your course A LOT? Who decides the parameters on what A LOT is? And if you changed BOTH speed AND course would you throw off the bot's aim the most of all? And would you have to do this maneuvering between the time EACH secondary fired? And since the secondaries fire individually, rather than in salvoes, you'd simply do best by maneuvering constantly? I just think it unlikely that all this got considered in some mathematical formula that then got programmed into the game just for the bots, especially for their individual secondaries. Why any of this matters... It's a fact that maneuvering by changing course affects your speed. It dips just a bit, going from FULL and dropping into the 3/4 range, depending on how violent the maneuvers are. And, of course, changing speed up and down would also drop your overall speed down some, too. In both cases this means that it would take MORE TIME to reach your target (say, to launch torpedoes at medium/close range), and MORE TIME would then translates into MORE SHOTS that the enemy bot could take at you, potentially causing MORE DAMAGE. Or sinking you. So have the programmers at WoWs said they've got some fancy formula programmed in for the bots that includes all types of maneuvering and their combos, or is it actually smarter to rush bots as fast as you possibly can (in a straight line; no maneuvering)? Just wondering.... PS Sorry if this question has already been asked and answered. I tried going through the archived pages, but there's just so many of them! A search of "maneuvering" + "bots" didn't yield anything.

In the current game, with the commander skill Manual Fire Control for Secondaries, you can only select one target at a time. I think it would be cool if you could select one target on the port side and one on the starboard side of the ship. If one ship crosses from one side to another, the ship the farthest away will be deselected. If you wanted the deselected ship targeted, just switch it manually. This would give secondaries a needed buff. I have found myself in many situations playing my German battleships where I was fighting two enemy ships at close range and had to decide which one to put my secondaries on. It just seems like it is a waste for half the secondaries on your ship to not be firing on one target while the other half is firing on another. We all know that this skill is a necessity on any secondary build.

I must be missing something because I see tons of coments about using the IFHE for Kurfurst secondaries. The option to take IFHE does is X'd out for my captain. What are people talking about?

I don’t know, I could be wrong, but I’m curious- had anyone achieved 10.1 km concealment build with a double strike and inside of the weather mode (which decreases concealment for increased dispersion)? And with 11.3 km secondary range, would it be possible to not be seen if it was just the secondary guns firing, based on the criteria? Or was there an update that prevented that from happening?