Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 't10'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • 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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 10 results

  1. Hi guys! I have gotten my 4th T10 last night, and it's the pride of the German cruiser line, Hindenburg. Screenshotted in German-esque Hunter camo. I look forward to playing this ship in CB and randoms, she is a lot of fun. A bit of thanks to @Pulicat for the inspiration on part of my ship build, spotter plane mod, and spotter plane. Fair winds and following seas captains!
  2. Its probably best if you just glance over the Underlined and bold parts. Its quite long. Plz reply and share your experiences. Hi everybody! I have been looking around at other forums and have thought that It would be a good idea to have one, big, main forum where everybody can voice their opinions (i.e. rage and complain) about the recent carrier rework. I have been getting several different opinions about what the carrier rework and hotfix has done to our warships. I have been looking around to see what kind of different opinions we have been getting about the carrier rework. From what I have currently seen, the most trouble has come from destroyers. The complaint is that aircraft spotting is too good, and that they are permaspotted and shelled by everything in the vicinity. The same can be said about scout cruisers, which lack the AA defense to repel concentrated air attack, and who cannot output enough damage to repel the hail of fire that the rest of the battle fleet will throw at it. This also does not allow it to spot other targets, voiding its purpose. Light and Heavy cruisers can output a substantial amount of AA firepower, but only the most powerful light cruisers and the most AA oriented heavy cruisers to repel a concentrated air attack. Under constant attack from my fully maxed Lexington, only the enemy Atlanta, AA spec Cleveland, a new Orleans with defensive AA fire, and a trio of battleships pooling their AA could prevent themselves from being decimated by my aircraft (even the AA ships still took minor damage from the remains of my squadrons). Light cruisers that shoot from behind islands are immobile, and vulnerable to attack from bombers and torpedo planes. Heavy cruisers, especially those with an AA focus, are the only ships capable of repelling constant attack by same tier carriers without major damage. Most battleships, with the exception of high tier American ones, generally have crap or mediocre AA, and need an escort or a division to pool their AA. However, concealment isn't really that important, and all BBs can take a hit, so other than being unable to dodge torpedoes, they did OK. The main consensus is that CV's are not that fun to play against. On top of that, It is hard to repel air attack, and being permanently spotted is deadly for most light cruisers and destroyers. I have also heard complaints from the aircraft carrier community. The US Cv community, complains that dive bombers require too much RNG and that the torpedoes don't do enough alpha. The IJN community is having trouble with AP bombs and the bomb sights, which are accurate but hard to use. The british CV line is still going through buffs and nerf at an alarming rate. Right now (2 patches from now this could have changed entirely) the british CV community complains that the short arming distance torpedoes are carried by aircraft that lack the health and speed to reach their target, and the bombing runs are rather flat and sort of have a forward rather than a mostly down trajectory. On top of that, all Cv's are having trouble doing reliable damage to ships. For example, American CV's struggle to inflict damage with bombs to well armored battleships, whose deck they fail to penetrate, and maneuvering cruisers, which they lack the accuracy to hit. Many Cv's complain that other ships do damage and earn credits farming damage off of cruisers and destroyers that they spot, while the CV hemorrhages aircraft trying to get damage done and the cruisers and destroyers rage over being spotted and focused down by the rest of the enemy ships. In conclusion, I believe that carrier spotting mechanics are a death sentence for any ships that rely on concealment. I also believe that Carriers fail to do much damage due to the fact that their planes, while fast, have too little health or maneuverability. Also, Carriers don't like being up-tiered. I look forward to your opinions and ideas about how to fix the carrier. Please PLZ! comment below. Photo gallery:
  3. Introduction: Well Yoshino is finally here, the replacement of the old T10 Azuma that will be released for coal in the Arsena- I mean Armory, in the near future. Seeing the very mixed reaction to the initial stats of the Yoshino, I have decided to delve deeper and actually compare Yoshino’s current iteration (as of March 31, 2019) to the single iteration of the T10 Azuma’s stats. Yoshino is designed to be an enhanced T10 Azuma, as Azuma was down-tiered to T9 due to a lack of comfortably. Hopefully this analysis will bring light as to whether or not Yoshino will currently succeeds in filling that role. Spreadsheet comparison: Direct link to public spreadsheet This is a personal spreadsheet I made, comparing the Yoshino (left) to T10 Azuma (right). Hopefully it is simple enough to be understood; grey means they are equal, green is better, and red is worse. I’d like to say that for AA and torpedoes, it’s a simple Yes/No, as Yoshino outclasses T10 Azuma in both of these - unless you prefer having no torps over torps, but you do you. The big “if” - the guns: There is one custom statistic I have put into the spreadsheet: Dispersion/Range. This is meant to show the average increase in dispersion per kilometer - hence the title of maximum dispersion being divided by range. I would like to state that I am aware that there is a minimum firing range, and as such these values would be slightly lower, however the point should still stand. Yoshino actually has, if my math is correct, a 0.05m advantage per kilometer, meaning that her shell groupings will in fact be very slightly tighter than the old T10 Azuma’s, which already had better dispersion than other super cruisers. While this will likely be minimal and possibly unnoticed, it is still an interesting difference. Yoshino also has a 0.05 sigma buff when compared to the old T10 Azuma. This will be noticeable, as over time more shells will likely hit due to sigma influencing how close shells group towards the center of a firing circle. Now, with these incremental changes in mind, it is time for the big question that I cannot answer - the dispersion formula. Azuma has been tested with her T10 formula, which was changed to cruiser levels at T9, which was then nerfed - whether T9 Azuma’s release state has the old formula is yet to be seen. IF Yoshino has the same formula as the old T10 Azuma, then this will be a fairly balanced tradeoff for the loss of 2s of reload. People following the development process of Montpelier may be familiar with this design choice: as she has lost 0.5s of reload in exchange for 0.15 sigma, to a fairly pleased audience reception. Once again, IF Yoshino has the same formula as T10 Azuma, then a reaction comparable to that towards Montpelier’s guns can be expected - slightly slower but with slightly more reliability, a balanced trade off. Should Yoshino have cruiser accuracy, then I will be thoroughly surprised, although this was not mentioned in the Dev Blog post. If Yoshino has a normal Graf Spee formula, then prepare yourselves for a wave of controversy. The torpedoes: As a quick note, Yoshino has received one choice for torpedo armament. These torpedoes are exact clones of the 12km Zao torpedo option in every way except reload, due to the fact that Yoshino has quadruple (4) launchers rather than Zao’s quintuple (5) launchers. With a base reload time of exactly 2 minutes (120 seconds), these torpedoes will likely be very potent, especially when the firing angles are taken into consideration. The above image depicts the firing angles of Yoshino's and Atago's torpedo tubes from left to right respectively. The inner circle represents the angles needed for a single torpedo set to be fired, with the outer circle representing a full broadside. Atago is well known for her forward torpedo angles, which, even though outclassed by French torpedo angles, still work extremely well in the current meta. Take note of how the cones for both circles on Yoshino's arcs are larger than Atago's. Yes, that does in fact mean that Yoshino has superior angles in every form when compared to Atago's. Couple this with the fact that Yoshino has exact copies of Zao's 12km torpedoes, and you begin to see just how potent these torpedoes can be when used effectively. The AA: I will not delve deep into this topic, as AA is still changing with updates in light of the CV rework. In short, the old AA on T10 Azuma was perfectly fine for self defense in a pre-rework meta as seen in Flamu’s video, and it would likely have been perfectly usable in the post-rework meta as well. Vomiting, as I like to call it, extra triple and single mounts of 25mm AA guns on the deck of Yoshino will only help to enhance her own personal AA aura. I will leave it at that, Yoshino’s buffed AA is certainly a quality of life improvement to the ship, whether or not it was needed is open to debate, as the IJN dual “bofors” were already packing quite the punch. Although I think at least one Midway bomber squadron will be able to get through to enlighten you with a perfectly balanced 15k damage drop. No I’m not salty, I swear. The armor: Oh boy. Oh boy oh boy oh boy. This one is fun, and I will admit I fell for this one as well. I’ve seen people claiming that Yoshino has nerfed armor when compared to the old T10 Azuma. Fortunately for us, Flamu showed every piece of armor of the T10 Azuma in his video (source below), and guess what: 30mm plating and center deck with 25mm nose and stern. I don’t know where the idea that T10 Azuma had a 30mm fore and aft came from, but it’s apparently a thing that’s believed. But no, Yoshino has the exact same armor as the old T10 Azuma, perfectly serviceable and good for tanking against BB shells 406mm in size or smaller. The model: The above image shows the models of Yoshino and T10 Azuma, Yoshino can be distinguished by the inclusion of white tarps on her rails and far larger quantity of 25mm AA guns on her main deck. I got quite lucky with 0.8.3 being delayed until April 1, allowing me to compare the 0.8.1 model of Azuma (before her 40mm guns are removed) to the 0.8.3 ST version of Yoshino’s model. A list of differences in Yoshino’s model when compared to T10 Azuma’s are: Far more 25mm AA guns Presence of sand bags all over the deck and superstructure as makeshift defense against small arms fire from planes Torpedo tubes slightly aft of the catapult in the main hull Different lifeboat configuration Spare wings for float planes by the catapult “Tarps” (I don’t know what these are called, canvas?) that cover over the railings amidships Various little details on the deck Truth be told, nothing special has really been done, you can tell that this is clearly a late war version of a sistership to Azuma, much like when you compare a 1942 Yamato to her final version in 1945 (bless WG for changing the model on Yamato). All in all this is passable for being a new model, although I wish WG did do some changes that were unique and not just the usual for sister ships. My main wish was for the inner secondaries to be given barbettes sticking out of the deck, akin to the French battleships, that allow then to superfire over the lower secondary batteries. This is a massive nitpick but it is something I’ve noticed with sister ships. I’m a little irked by the inclusion of the canvas tarps as a means to add color to emphasize a difference between ships, this was done when Anshan’s model was reused to make Fushun (Fushun lost the tarps), and when Mikhail Kutuzov’s model was reused to make the Irian. While this is very minor, I do wish more was done to differentiate sister ships rather than a little splash of color. /rant Does Yoshino fulfill her role?: Yoshino is meant to be a modestly buffed replacement of the original T10 Azuma. As outlined by the developers themselves in their Dev Blog post, “...Cruiser [Azuma] moved to tier IX. This reallocation will allow the ship to feel more comfortable in battle…”, the T10 Azuma was thus not well suited for T10 due to a lack of comfortably. Because of this, Yoshino is meant to be, by design, a more comfortable (and thus a very slightly more powerful) version of T10 Azuma. Do I think Yoshino fills this role? No. Yoshino is so damn close to fulfilling her potential, but she’s not quite there. She has gained situational advantages in the form of AA and torpedoes with extremely good angles, which is a plus. But this comes at a direct cost to consistent DPM in the form of a 2 second reload nerf. A 1.1 second rudder shift nerf which came out of left field does not aid in making her more comfortable to play as a mid-to-long range HE and AP spammer either. It feels like Yoshino’s current iteration leans less towards being more comfortable than T10 Azuma, and more towards relying on unneeded crutches at the cost of gameplay aspects that were actually contributing to a comfortable play style - losing exactly 10k hit points on a whim to the Balance Gods did not help this case either. Conclusion - What I would personally like to see changed: For extremely basic changes to make Yoshino more comfortable, it is an easy route: her slow turrets should be changed from 5 to 6 degrees of rotation per second - dropping the 180 degree rotation time from 36 to 30 seconds, the rudder should also be looked into, as there is no real reason why an already slow rudder should be 1.1s slower. Yoshino’s guns will likely have better shell groupings over T10 Azuma as well, due to the increased sigma and slightly lower increase in dispersion per kilometer. However, this only applies if Yoshino uses the same dispersion formula as T10 Azuma. The biggest gripe that the community has with Yoshino right now is her survivability. When compared to the release version of T9 Azuma, she has 30mm armor (thank the lord), but at the cost of 10k health when compared to the original Azuma. Yoshino also lacks the enhanced heal of the T9 Azuma, it’s perfectly standard. I’d like to see Yoshino either get her health buffed into the higher range of the 60,000’s, or receive the heal of T9 Azuma (extra charge with faster cooldown) to maintain the flavor that has been set with Japanese super cruisers. What are your guys’ thoughts on Yoshino? Do you believe she achieves the set goal of being a proper replacement for the older T10 Azuma? Sources used: Yoshino Dev Blog - https://medium.com/@devblogwows/new-ships-9fab6b188e90?fbclid=IwAR2pNYlHHcz-9j3sUi6zYTcc0g6fzeNyydILTtemN3vNfqDDLPYoIdz0QGU T10 Azuma Dev Blog - https://www.facebook.com/wowsdevblog/photos/a.1914529002206771/2228614504131551/ Flamu (T10 Azuma Video) - https://youtu.be/Tnzq4cgD694 Game Models 3D - https://gamemodels3d.com/games/worldofwarships/vehicles/pjsc520 https://gamemodels3d.com/games/worldofwarships/vehicles/pjsc034 https://gamemodels3d.com/games/worldofwarships/vehicles/pjsc038 https://gamemodels3d.com/games/worldofwarships/vehicles/pjsc510 T9 Azuma and T10 Yoshino purchasing methods (Dev Blog) - https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/aofu5u/azuma_yoshino_neustrashimy/ Azuma down-tier Dev Blog - https://medium.com/@devblogwows/test-ship-changes-bc8825f30d1c Wow the forums are difficult to use to format text...
  4. I couldn't find this easily, so I found it elsewhere and thought other people would want to know as well: DD: Gearing -> Flyfire Z-52 -> Blue Aster CA: Zao -> Zaya Des Moines -> Galaxy Minotaur -> Norma Moskva -> Aurora BB: Großer Kurfürst -> Alldestroyer République -> Paris CV: Hakuryu -> Hellcarrier
  5. So, one of the problems that Germany had at the end of the 1930's was that their Navy had 6 light cruisers and other than the last 2 being barley adequate to count as any kind of a serious sea going combat ship, it meant that they basically had 2 ships that they could use as light cruisers to accompany any larger capitol ships. Now mind you this was in the years that Admiral Reader and Hitler was making their Christmas wish list. You know 6 to 10 new Battleships, 6 new M class light cruisers, 12 new P class armored cruisers, 4 aircraft carriers, 24 destroyers, ext. LOL, If Germany could have built even half of that in 6 years with the Idea that they were going to start stuff in 1944 to 46, you know that Briton and France would have craped their pants and be building ships in reply. Then the Italians, Japan, America would have been hitting their yards with new ships. It might have not went on the scale of what the 1890 to 1910 arms race was, but it would have been a mini arms race. It might have made WW2 more interesting though if Germany did actually start the war with at least 4 to 6 Battleships, and somewhat of a larger fleet even though the British empire and France would have enlarged theirs also. Plus I dont know if the aircraft tech would have advanced at the same rate. I think a lot of things wouldn't have been as advanced until war caused it to have to be figured out. Anyway one of the idea's that German Ship Designers considered albeit not very seriously was to take the hull for Seydlitz and finish her into a Hipper class heavy configuration, except instead of mounting 8 - 203mm (8"guns), they proposed to mount 12 - 150mm (5.9" guns) in four triple super firing turrets. This would have solved the design issues of the M class cruisers completely. They would have been way ahead in the thinking of the Americans that made Cleveland's and Baltimore's from the same hulls. With a Hipper hull and the slightly lighter 15cm triple turrets, they could have carried much more fuel, supplies and ammunition for the main battery. they could mount extra AA guns, (although in 1938 no one realized, or had a lot of fear of planes yet). They would have had more range than the M class cruisers and would have been better protected, unless they thinned the armor belt to save weight. Either option would have gave them a far superior, but more expensive ship. They already had built 3 of these ships complete and were close to finishing the 2 last ones as heavy cruisers. They were dragging their feet on Seydlitz though because it was promised to the Russians under the non aggression pact that Daddy Hitler and Uncle Joe had with each other. None the less though lets say the Reader convinces Hitler that they can build more heavy cruisers later and that he would like to convert Lutzow to a medium/large light cruiser if you will and that it would be advantages to replace the K class with them or to augment future battlegroups. Hitler is in a good mood for a change and because at the time he doesn't foresee any serious strife in the near future he says ( If you think this is a good idea Admiral then it is ok to proceed. Admiral Raeder gets Goring drunk and gets him to divert a little of the Luftwaffe's money his way, along with slightly prolonging the M class cruisers construction. He gets a hold on like 4 submarines which totally pisses off Doughnuts, er (Doenitz). Dont worry he will get over it. So the next letter of the alphabet in line for light cruiser design is S, because the M,N,O, and P are scheduled, with Q, and R already selected. The Germans didn't always do this either but they were in a slight habit of naming the first, and or all ships of a letter class. For example the 3 K class were all K town names. L was Leipzig, but the second L class was Nuremberg, so hit and miss on that however the first M class cruiser was most likely to be Munich. So S. There are several towns with S. Admiral Reader had traveled through the small town of Schwanewede and was taken to the local people and countryside view there. so this name was selected for the first of the class. (note that the last sentence here is pure fabrication on my part for the story. I just wanted to establish a plausible story to establish a possible name for a fictitious ship.) So I present to you Der Kriegsmarine Shiffe: Schwanewede. Schwanewede crest The first ship of the class built with the hull and machinery of the 4th Hipper Class. This would make her resistant to 203mm shells. Launched in mid 1939. Germany classified her as a Light Cruiser but the English press wrote editorials that claimed that this ship was truly more of an overpowered light cruiser, and or an under gunned Heavy Cruiser. The French press claimed that Germany invented the Medium Cruiser, and should make their minds up. Here the guns and torpedo tubes are outlined in Orange and the front AA 37 single in Yellow. Here the same outline as seen from the top down view.
  6. With all the controversy surrounding the rework I feel it is high time for some hard data. Since some cannot or don't want to download the PTS here is the relevant AA stats for T10 ships. Note I did not include modules or captain skills, this is the base stats only. Battleships: DDs: CA/CLs CVs: Conclusions, Musings, and general TLDR: AA bubbles do not overlap. Short range AA is useless, if you are shooting down planes it is with your flak clouds. All flak clouds do good damage if they hit. The most important stats for determining if AA is good or not is number of flak clouds and range of medium and long range AA. This means at T10 the best AA ships are those with no short range AA. Conqueror, Rebublique, Henri IV, Daring, and Z52 fit this bill for surface ships. Worchester still has heavy AA despite it's blind spot. Montana and Gearing have poor AA now(with Gearing only being better than the Shimakaze). Speaking of DFAA it now boosts continuous DPS by 50% and flak damage by 100%. IT's nice IF you have enough flak to hit but otherwise does little.
  7. 8 4939843 7 4501474 10 4362409 6 3840728 5 3695758 9 2807057 4 2534687 3 1871145 The list above shows the number of battles played by tier for the NA server in the quarter ending Sept 29, taken from here. I've organized them from most to least by tier. Note first of all the extremely low number of battles for T9. There are simply not enough T9s to fill out T10 battles the way the current MM is set up, so it must dip into T8. As you can see, T8 has the most battles of any tier, followed by T7. There would probably be a lot more at T5 and T6 if the MM wasn't so awful right now. If T9s are pulled into T10 in great numbers, there are few T9s to give T8s one tier and T7s two tier spreads. Hence, to ensure that T9s are spread evenly across T7-8 battles and that there MM has a fair two tier spread at T7, the surplus of T8s have to be shoved up to T10 to fill the slots that should be going to T9s. The problem of the current MM is that no one plays T9 ships and that WG has organized the game around T10 even though, as evidence shows, most players would rather be at T8... indeed, if we switched to a one tier MM there would be even more T8 games. What's interesting is that people are still enthusiastically willing to be abused at by the MM at T8. Here are the T8 ships ranked by number of battles... 1 Cleveland 47107 661986 2 North Carolina 20705 400507 3 Bismarck 20333 379471 4 Massachusetts 11822 271901 5 Baltimore 17353 260425 6 Tirpitz 20213 246180 7 Benson 10407 200233 8 Akizuki 9786 171531 9 Admiral Hipper 9870 168702 10 Kagero 9317 167142 11 Richelieu 8343 164301 12 Amagi 9423 158947 13 Mogami 8857 152044 14 Alabama 10727 136962 15 Edinburgh 8542 131836 16 Atago 9359 106768 17 Monarch 5193 105370 18 Chapayev 5871 92695 19 Z-23 4647 87826 20 Charles Martel 5410 85963 21 Kidd 8947 79291 22 Lexington 4351 75741 23 Asashio 3375 71387 24 Prinz Eugen 9622 65538 25 HSF Harekaze 5042 63381 26 Hsienyang 2789 54644 27 Mikhail Kutuzov 5715 51030 28 Kiev 3806 50862 29 Ognevoi 4133 47330 30 Loyang 5066 43513 31 ARP Takao 5219 38809 32 Roma 3759 38380 33 Kii 3035 28395 34 Shokaku 2088 25200 35 Gascogne 2320 20164 36 Enterprise 1462 10379 37 Graf Zeppelin 399 8612 38 Cossack 1077 8366 39 Lightning 940 8031 ...note that the majority are tech tree ships. Kii, Roma, and Gascogne are almost non-existent -- examples of how the two tier MM that shoves players up to T10 has killed T8 premium ship purchases (doesn't help that the recent crop of T8 premiums has been pretty meh, soon to be joined by the gimped Wichita). I've stopped playing T8-10 and will not lay out any cash on premiums for those tiers since why pay to be a fodderbote, and I doubt I am the only one to make that latter decision. In a one tier MM I would probably have bought Roma, Gascogne, and Massachusetts... Lightning was new so I imagine she will move rapidly up the charts. But of the top ten and top 15, most are tech tree ships. Only 2 premiums, Mass and Tirp, are in the top ten. At T8 lots of the tech tree ships are really enjoyable boats, and of course many people wanted to try the new Cleveland. Thanks for the food, guys. It's blindingly obvious that we need to switch to a one tier MM. WG's deference to T10 is killing the high tiers, while T5-6 are broken. If we switched to a one-tier MM T9 would hardly change, and more T9s would be available to be pulled into T10 matches. There would be a slightly longer wait at T10 since the hordes of T8 ships would no longer be available. What is really needed to make that happen is for WG to change the way it treats T10 like a spoiled, favorite son even though the numbers show that people would rather be at T8. The best gameplay is at T5-8 and that's what the game should emphasize. In a one tier MM those four tiers would be loads of fun, and everyone would play a greater variety of boats. Top ten T9 ships by number of battles. I guess people must be grinding Buffalo, because there is no other reason to play it, let alone so much. 9 Iowa 13423 283731 9 Fletcher 10385 245719 9 Missouri 11380 230637 9 Buffalo 11495 209645 9 Seattle 7606 192111 9 Friedrich der Grosse 8253 159845 9 Yugumo 6537 146543 9 Alsace 5568 142368 9 Musashi 5806 138180 9 Roon 5707 117235
  8. I like Ranked battles. there i said it. However, In multiple seasons I have fallen short of your criteria to complete a season. Unfortunately, WG, This season, you will not even allow me to participate. Last season, I achieved ranked 10 and then my season ended because I don't have a T10. This season I will start at R16. I will be 3 stars away from ending my season because i still do not have a t10! Therefore, this season, you ensured I will not be even be allowed to play. Please consider the following recommendations: 1) allow rentals to be unlocked for players who achieve ranked 15. 2) allow players to continue playing ranked at t8, without the ability to continue earning stars. 3) reset my stars, so that I can play ranked this year 4) gift me a t10 ship (a Moskava) *5) from responses: Pull back irrevocable to R15 from R10 and push forward T10 to R10. WG. I hope you will reconsider your decisions for ranked this season. If its about money, I think you are alienating players who are on the cusp of deciding to continue playing or finding a new game. *If you are a player on the forum who is sharing in my dilemma of a shortened season for playing last season, please take a moment to "like" the original post. With enough interest, perhaps WG may take the time to calculate the proportion of the player base who this decision impacts.
  9. Hello all, In preparation for the new ranked season I looked to see if any CC's/Good Players had Ranked ship suggestion videos for this season. Pretty much I may have a few T8 Battles (not many I expect due to past ranks) but will be spending a lot of time at T10. My goto ship is the Hindenburg. I love that cruiser. I also have all the other T10 Cruisers with the exception of one, the Worcester (no Stalingrad either I guess). My question to the community is if the new reload booster makes the Henry a decent ship to use over the course of battles. I don't play the Henry a lot, and in past Ranked battles I have seen people use her. Thoughts? Suggestions? Links to new Ranked Battles Ship videos?
  10. What is wrong with T10 economy? How is the difference between these 2 games so abysmal? Both only have the permacammo so not like I had a bunch of flags. Both games I was top but the base credit for the DM was 240k while for the Shima only 160k. How is that possible since I did WAY more damage, captured points, even had more than double damage due to spotting. Could someone on WG tell me why the shima is getting so fcked??
×