Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'tier 10'.

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 51 results

  1. Hello everyone, recently I produced a YouTube video featuring replays of the USS Montana at tier 10. If you are bored and can use a distraction today, feel free to check it out. But rather than a typical ship review video, I've kind of noticed that the footage in the video showcases various issues and things that can be improved with game play at tier 10. Among the things I noticed (and suggestions for improvement): #1 Most maps features a Littoral environment with close by shorelines, islands, shallow water, and straits. I think although ships did fight in environments that fall into this category in history, it did not happen nearly as frequently as it has in game. Arguably it's probably not a good idea to sail capital ships in such confined waters in real life due to various asymmetrical threats that they cannot sufficiently defend against. Mines, attacks from much smaller units like torpedo boats that thrive in the environment, shore batteries, air attacks, arguably even sabotage largely renders heavy ships vulnerable in a littoral environment. For example, in the Battle of Surigao strait, the IJN Fuso and Yamashiro fought a futile suicidal action in such confined and unsuitable environment. Meanwhile, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the British raid on Taranto, and the Italian raid of Alexandria were extreme examples of what happened to capital ships when they can't maneuver while attacked. Obviously the game cannot be completely realistic or faithful to history, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to look into this and come up with maps that features different types of environment. #2 The roles caps play in game aren't always good nor are they always conducive of good game play action. I think winning a fight in terms of damages, kills, and spots while losing because the enemy has more points is not an ideal situation. When there are more than two caps (i.e. WOT style set up) in game, the presence of the caps alone often promotes passive game play. It takes away the focus of the fight from engaging and annihilating the enemy. Rather camo, capping, spotting, and area denial become important. I think it is rare to have a situation in the history of modern naval warfare where it was key to control or contain a small patch of the ocean like a cap on WOWS. Sure if there's an amphibious or combined arms operation at play, it could happen. But then that's not a factor in WOWS. When a team's stealthier ships are not up to par or incidentally get taken out early, the team will watch victory slipping away due to having a major disadvantage to contest the caps. At this point, the team with the points lead often farm damage and/or hide and milk the caps, while the losing team becomes either passive or reckless: either way it often ends badly. What if we try to set up games that has no caps at all? Not even 2? This will bring the focus of the fight back onto engaging the enemy. The points count could be determined by the number and types of surviving ships, like the way historians look at the tonnage sunk and human casualty after the Battle of Jutland? What if as an alternative to having caps, the game offer an option for damaged ships to withdraw by offering them a chance to limp away to a designated part of the map's edge? I think this is also a game play mechanic faithful to history as the withdrawing of damaged ships often have strategic implications. For example, the USS Enterprise was seriously damaged in the Pacific multiple times but its survival proven crucial. Meanwhile the survival and withdraw of the German High Sea's fleet's capital ships after the Battle of Jutland was key to the strategic situation then. I think it would be good to make people fight eagerly and then withdraw. It's a better situation than the passiveness or recklessness found in game now. #3 Some maps by design forces a team to split up into multiple sub fleets to contest different areas of the map. This seems like a forced gamble, and it often was in history. Sometimes a smaller or weaker subfleet's demise in the hands of a stronger opponent often snowballs quickly and makes the team's success elsewhere irrelevant. Some maps also kind of isolate the subfleets by the design of their geography so that once the team has been split, it's hard to once again combined forces for cooperative play: distance is too far for effective engagement or timely relocation and line of sight is blocked... This often means doing your part isn't enough for a win just cause the team kind of went the wrong way or ran into the wrong enemies. #4 Ships, battleships in particular tend to not move much but rather try to function as bow tanking artillery barges. I would say that usually the Yamatos are probably the worse offenders of this. In a sense I don't blame them cause they have the guns that can go through bow plating, their citadels are exposed on the side, they aren't particularly fast, nor do their turrets turn quickly enough for shooting while turning. But ultimately this situation is kind of odd and not fun. It penalizes ships that don't have most of its firepower concentrated in the front and devolves games into a strange naval version of trench warfare where ships try to hide while bow on behind islands and mountains and take pot shots at each other like soldiers in neighboring trenches tossing grenades over the top. Although nobody likes to eat citadels, I still think this situation is not good for the game. #5 Destroyers' playerbase seems to have the highest skill floor and ceiling in game at tier 10. As a BB player, it seems that sometimes the cap situation is already a done deal due to the DDs even before I get to engage anyone. A good DD player can take out a not so good DD player extremely quickly. How good your DD is often puts a hard limit on how the rest of your team will fare. If the friendly DDs die early or are less skilled, the BBs often suffer tremendously due to not being able to anticipate enemy intention or have sufficient situational awareness. #6 I in particular dislike having torpedo boat style Japanese DDs (Shimakaze line) on either teams. As enemies they often come in divisions and can torp spam and/or snipe in ways that's almost impossible to counter in a BB. Ever been targeted by 45 torps at once? I have. It was not pretty. As allies, the Japanese DDs often do not counter enemy DDs. They might spot and cap. But when they run into the enemy DDs they will often run away while dumping their torps which aren't always good for attacking DDs. I've noticed that many of them almost never fire their guns. An enemy's on 500hp at 6km? They fire torps but their guns stay silent. They are also often so obsessed and tunnel-visioned that they will try to saturate an area where friendly BBs are engaged in a brawl with the enemy with torps. I've lost count how many times I've been torpedoed by friendly DDs while brawling. (my video shows this happening 3 times...) #7 Ironically, at tier 10 cruisers seem to play very differently versus at mid tiers, especially from a BB player's perspective. Maybe due to their vulnerabilities to big guns, they'll often play 2nd line at most. This often means they aren't close enough to the action to counter DDs or close enough to the BBs to provide AA. So much so that DDs and BBs often fight their own fight without help. The cruiser at tier 10 seem to focus on farming damage and opportunistic moves, on a good day they usually chime in and engage enemies that are already being engaged, distracted, or has overextended. But them as a defensive screen and support against enemies BBs can't see or maneuver against, often don't exist... Just some of my observations thus far. I'm obviously a fan of the game and I want it to improve and fulfill its potential. Feel free to discuss share your thoughts on the points I brought up and how things could be improved.
  2. ¡BAP Ferré! Hace poco hablando con mi novia comentó el hecho de que le encantaría ver al BAP Ferré (buque peruano) en un futuro árbol tecnológico panamericano representando a la rama en el tier 10. Al principio la idea me pareció extraña pues creía que el BAP Ferré era una fragata misilera, pero luego ella me explicó que era un destructor clase Daring. Me sorprendió bastante pues consideraba la Marina de Guerra del Perú está formada en su mayoría por fragatas y cobertas misileras (con alguna excepción como el ex-Grau que era un crucero). Esta situación me tenía intrigado así que decidí investigar. *Dramatización* Encontré muchos datos interesantes (además de los que ella me comentó) y decidí revisar el artículo de un compañero (Talleyrand). Ahí pude ver que había considerado al BAP Palacios como un posible tier 8 premium (es un artículo con algo de tiempo), la explicación me pareció muy buena y sumado al hecho que Wargaming ha implementado al Daring como destructor de tier 10 me convenció aún más de escribir esto. Luego de dejarle una pequeña bardeada a Tyllerand (por no haber enaltecido más a la gloriosa Marina de Guerra del Perú) tenía todo listo para darle al BAP Ferré el reconocimiento que merece. ¡Comencemos! Primero que nada, hablemos un poco sobre el teniente primero Diego Ferré Sosa de quien el barco toma el nombre. Diego Ferré fue un marino peruano fallecido en el combate naval de Angamos el 8 de octubre de 1879. Nacido en una familia privilegiada el 13 de noviembre de 1844 se trasladó a Lima en 1859 donde cursó estudios secundarios hasta 1864 en el Colegio Nacional Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe. En 1865 se matriculó en el Colegio Naval Militar cuyo examen final fue presidido por el futuro héro del Combate del Callao y en ese entonces ministro de Guerra y Marina José Gálvez el cual le ofreció el título de guardiamarina. El 14 de enero de 1866 cumpliendo su palabra lo destinó a la corbeta América. En aquel tiempo la Escuadra Española del Pacífico tenía la misión de restituir la soberanía de España en sus antiguas colonias. Es en este ambiente que la América junto a otros buques de guerra se dirigieron a las costas de Chile para la firma del Tratado de Alianza contra España. Es el 7 de febrero de 1866 cuando, pese a contar con fuerzas muy inferiores, la flota combinada de Chile y Perú vencieron a la Escuadra Española del Pacífico. Por su participación distinguida Ferré fue ascendido a alférez de fragata. Sirvió en esta hasta su naufragio el 13 de agosto de 1868 durante el maremoto de Arica. En noviembre de ese año viaja a los Estados Unidos para remolcar a los monitores Atahualpa y Manco Cápac. Es a bordo ambos monitores que hizo la travesía desde Nueva Orleans hasta el Callao por el Estrecho de Magallanes. Llegado al Perú fue ascendido a teniente segundo el 19 de mayo de 1870. Sirvió en el vapor Tumbes en 1871 y fue asignado al Huáscar en 1872. Es ascendido a teniente primero en 1875 y fue designado al Mano Cápac en 1877 aunque fue desembarcado 1 mes después. Es en enero de 1878 cuando regresa al Huáscar. Luego del estallido de la Guerra del Pacífico pasó a ser ayudante de Miguel Grau. Participó en el combate naval de Iquique, en el Primer y Segundo combate naval de Antofagasta y en el combate naval de Angamos. Es ahí donde murió junto a Grau a causa de una granada chilena que cayó en el puente de mando. BAP Ferré, protegiendo al Mar de Grau desde 1973 Así como Diego Ferré protegió el Mar de Grau, el BAP Ferré siguió con su misión. Clase Daring La clase Daring fueron una serie de 11 destructores construidos por la Marina Real Británica (Royal Navy) y para la Armada Real Australiana (Royal Australian Navy). Construidos aplicando las enseñanzas de la guerra 8 pasaron a manos de la RN y los otros 3 a la RAN. Posteriormente 2 destructores de la Marina Real Británica fueron vendidos a la Marina de Guerra del Perú. Estos fueron: -BAP Palacios (ex-HMS Diana) desguazado en 1993. -BAP Ferré (ex-HMS Decoy) dado de baja y en espera de destino. Nos centraremos más en el ex-BAP Ferré (ya fue decomisionado) en su configuración al momento de su adquisición. Traten de no confundirlos, en la Marina de Guerra del Perú es común repetir los nombres. Los actuales BAP Ferré y BAP Palacios son una corbeta misilera y una fragata misilera respectivamente. Especificaciones al momento de ser adquirido: HMAS Vampire, uno de los clase Daring existentes. Desplazamiento: 3820 toneladas a plena carga Velocidad: 35 nudos Armamento: 6 cañones (3×2) Vickers de 114mm (QF 4.5 inch/45 Mark V) 4 antiaéreas 40mm (60 Bofors A/A en 2 montajes gemelos STAAG Mk. II) 2 antiaéreas 40mm (60 Bofors A/A en 1 montaje gemelo Mk. V) 10 tubos lanzatorpedos (5×2) de 533mm Mk. IX Lo que acabamos de ver es más que todo una descripción bastante superficial de lo que fue el BAP Ferré antes de su modernización. Debido a la futura implementación del Daring en el juego podemos darnos una idea de la jugabilidad que tendrá, claro que con algún cambio para que no ver a un simple “clon”. Tenemos el caso de Yue Yang que pese a pertenecer a una clase muy similar a la de Gearing tiene rasgos distintivos como el posible uso de radar y los torpedos de profundidad. Algún “gimmick” bien implementado podría darle una jugabilidad distinta y hacerlo “especial” a comparación de Daring. Por ejemplo, me encantaría verlo con una cortina de humo cuya funcionalidad sea como la de Perth (mi crucero favorito) creo que daría lugar a muy interesantes jugadas. Todos sabemos que la Armada Argentina, la Armada de Chile y la Marina de Brasil (Marinha do Brasil) tendrán participaciones destacadas a futuro en el juego así que ¿por qué no variar un poco las cosas? Ahora seguro pensarán: -¿Qué tiene especial la Marina de Guerra del Perú? -¿Crees que a esa marina sin historia la tomarán en cuenta? No voy a negar que otras marinas como las que ya mencioné antes tienen muchos puntos a destacar, como el haber tenido portaaviones y acorazados. Pero la Marina de Guerra del Perú tiene lo suyo y a continuación unos ejemplos. Perú Virreinal: -La creación de la Armada de la Mar del Sur así como repeler las “expediciones” de Francis Drake, Thomas Cavendish, Richard Hwakins, Joris van Spielbergen y Jacques Clerk L’Hermite. Perú Independiente: -Guerra con la Gran Colombia: Bloqueo a Guayaquil y apoyo a las fuerzas que ocuparon la ciudad. Perú del Siglo XIX: -Combate del 2 de mayo y expulsión definitiva española de Sudamérica. -El Huáscar se convirtió en el primer buque en esquivar torpedos autopropulsados. -Guerra del Pacífico así como la implementación del primer submarino en Sudamérica (Toro Submarino). -Correrías del Huáscar. Perú del Siglo XX: -Se orden la construcción de los cruceros Almirante Grau y Coronel Bolognesi así como la adquisición de los submarinos Teniente Palacios y Teniente Ferré los cuales serían los primeros de su tipo en Sudamérica. -Conflicto con Ecuador de 1941. -Segunda Guerra Mundial. Defensa del litoral desempeñada eficazmente. -Compra de cruceros clase De Ryuter asi como destructores clase Daring, fragatas Lupo, destructores antisubmarinos, Proyecto Tiburón así como la adición de muchas otras naves. Como se puede apreciar, historia hay mucha y motivos no faltan. ¡Gracias por haber leído! Agradezco a UsagiGumi por aclararme el tema y a Talleyrand por permitirme usar su información. Artículo de UsagiGumi: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/166109-destructores-británicos-parte-iii/ Artículo de Talleyrand: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/143715-árbol-latino-destructores/ Artículo original: https://reportedebatalla.com/2018/07/31/porque-todos-merecemos-destacar/ Informa: YamiSugi
  3. Name: Worcester Ship type: light cruiser Class: Worcester Nation: United States of America Tier: X Greetings fellow captains, supreme overlords, and dispersion divinities. Today, in the third installment of Naval Intelligence, I bring you the last "all-gun" light cruiser built for any navy in the world; the pinnacle of the United States Navy light cruiser line: Worcester. My objective is to inform players about a different, and factual piece of information that hopefully will aid you in deciding whether to obtain this ship or not. This review will go over its history briefly, her in-game characteristics, and other factors such as aesthetics, modules, and what you can expect if you so decide to give her a place in your port. History “History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” - Mark Twain Worcester belonged to a class of ten ships; however, the number was considered surplus to the war effort as the year of 1945 passed and so, only two vessels: Worcester (CL-144) and Roanoke (CL-145) were constructed. This new class of cruisers was conceived as a successor of the Cleveland-class, but their new 152 mm gun mounts and further modification (that were based on experience from World War II) turned them into a much heavier design. The development of the Worcester-class dates back to May 1942, as the General Board requested designs for a new light cruiser class; this new class would fulfill several roles and specifications: destroyer-like speed and maneuverability, dual-purpose artillery, destroyer flotilla leaders, cruiser dimensions, scouting operations, and seakeeping capabilities in almost any weather. USS Worcester was laid down on 26 January 1945 by the New York Shipbuilding Corporation in Camden, New Jersey. She was launched in February 1947 and entered service on 26 June 1948. Though she didn't participate in World War II or any particularly remarkable engagement afterward; Worcester played a secondary role at the beginning of the Korean War (1950-1953). The ship and her crew were complimented by their comrades and superiors several times during their short time in Asia; Worcester received some awards, citations and campaign ribbons during her service career (such as the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation, and the United Nations Korean Service Medal). Being the embodiment of a design philosophy pertaining to a bygone era, Worcester was deemed obsolete shortly after her commissioning, and unlike the contemporary Des Moines-class of heavy cruisers, she did not find a new life in the era of the Cold War and newer technologies. USS Worcester was decommissioned on 19 December 1958 and was stricken from the Naval Registry on 1 December 1970. She was sold for scrap to Zidell Explorations, Inc. in July 1972. Two-hundred tons of Worcester's armor plating has been used by the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Illinois. Specifications “It's supposed to be automatic, but actually you have to push this button.” - John Brunner Worcester was powered by four Westinghouse 620psi boilers; each fed steam to a General Electric geared steam turbine that turned one shaft respectively. Her power plant was rated at 120,000 shaft horsepower and produced a speed of 33 knots. She had a maximum cruising range of 8,000 nautical miles at a speed of 15 knots. The cruiser was also considered as one of the largest ships of this type in the world; with a length of 207.3 m (680 ft), and a displacement of 14,700 tons when commissioned, she is truly one of the heaviest and biggest light cruisers to ever be commissioned (though the Courageous-class of battlecruisers built for the Royal Navy during World War I are considered by sources as "large light cruisers", which dwarf Worcester in comparison). In-game, her dimensions grant her a rated turning circle of 740 m with a stock rudder shift time of 8.1 seconds; the latter can be considerably decreased by utilizing (separately or simultaneously) Steering Gears Modification 2 in Slot 4 (-20% rudder shift time), and Steering Gears Modification 3 in Slot 5 (-40% to rudder shift time, and -80% to repair time). Her armament consisted of twelve 152 mm (6")/47 Mark 16DP dual-purpose guns encased in six twin turrets, with turrets 3 and 4 being the only ones in a superfiring position (this means that they're mounted at a higher level than the rest of the main battery mounts). These 152 mm guns have a stock rate of fire of 4.6 seconds and can be brought further down with the relevant Slot 6 Upgrade and the Adrenaline Rush skill. These guns are complimented by a 180° turret traverse speed of 7.2 seconds. The High Explosive (HE) (2,200 maximum damage, 12% base fire chance) and Armor Piercing shells (3,200 maximum damage, standard cruiser AP) used by the Worcester are fitting to the magnificent rate of fire that it possesses. They also have a base firing range of 16.7 km, which is sufficient for these guns due to their shell arcs; but more about them on the following section. The anti-aircraft suite on the Worcester is unrivaled in terms of damage and range. The 152 mm dual-purpose mounts have a stock average damage per second of 121.2, and a base firing range of 6 km. Worcester is also equipped with twenty-four 76.2 mm (3")/50 Mark 33/34 mounts which can also be found on Des Moines-class cruisers. Twenty-two of these barrels are mounted in Mark 33 dual mounts; ten of them are mounted on the sides of the cruiser while a single dual mount is located near the bow, they have an average damage per second of 306.9. The other two 3" barrels are located on the stern in single mounts with an average damage of 39.4. Both dual and single mounts share the same firing range of 5 km. The ship also has six dual 20 mm Oerlikon Mark 20 mounts that have an average damage of 73.2 and a stock firing range of 2.01 km. Worcester's armor is typical of an American light cruiser: thin armor plating covering the citadel with a relatively small portion of it above the waterline, while the rest of the citadel is submerged. The entirety of the cruiser's hull is covered by 25 mm of armor, which is sufficient against high tier cruisers, but is defective against any warship that sports a gun caliber equal or above 380 mm. The gun turrets have 38 mm covering their sides and rear, while their faces are covered by 127 mm of armor; though not heavily armored, these values allow the turrets to bounce incoming shells sporadically. The barbettes also possess a thin skin, which can make the main battery mounts prone to being knocked out (it is advised to equip the relevant upgrades and commander skills to enhance the turrets' survivability). Playstyle “Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.” - Bruce Lee At first, she may not be that appealing to those that treasure short shell flight times and flat travel arcs; but she makes up for the lack of fast shell velocities with an impressive array of consumables and impressive rate of fire that allow Worcester to adapt to most situations that arise on the battlefield. It is noteworthy that Worcester's 152 mm guns benefit from utilizing Inertia Fuse for High Explosive Shells (IFHE); this commander skill increases shell penetration by 30% while reducing the probability of causing a fire upon hitting a target by 3%, though the sheer volume of fire is sufficient to compensate the fire chance reduction. The usage of this skill grants Worcester an HE penetration number of 33 mm, which is enough to cause penetration damage to any battleship with a conventional armor scheme (i.e. Conqueror/Montana). Those players that own the Tier VII USS Atlanta will find Worcester as a much-improved version of her. Worcester's core features are (similar to Atlanta's): the ability to hurl shells over islands towards incoming enemy vessels; searching and eliminating hostile destroyers; support the fleet with a no-fly-zone of anti-aircraft artillery; and, since she can handle open water engagements more appropriately than Atlanta (though perilous in nature), Worcester is capable of kiting and evading incoming shells while providing suppressive fire that can soften or sink hostile vessels outright. Worcester can prove to be a difficult enemy to bring down if handled correctly, though her fragility compensates the potential havoc she can bring down upon the enemy team. She is not to be taken lightly, as her varied consumable lineup mixed with a high rate of fire and proper positioning can turn Worcester into the fulcrum of her team in terms of damage and support; alas, like most warships in the game, Worcester requires a team that can synergize well to bring victory, and this cannot go unnoticed or unspoken. Consumables “You will need to be mature and pragmatic. You must use your heart to decide the destination, but use your head to plot the journey.” - Amish Tripathi Worcester has the most amount of consumables at Tier X; starting with a standard cruiser Damage Control Party, standard-issue Defensive Fire AA, Tier X USN Surveillance Radar (range: 9.9 km, duration: 40 seconds), cruiser Repair Party, and a standard Tier X Hydroacoustic Search with a 4.9 km range. Using these consumables at the right moment is key to performing well in Worcester; though running an all-premium consumable lineup is quite expensive without Premium Account, and necessary precautions must be taken if one is low on credits (such as prioritizing some premium consumables over others, signal flags, and camouflages). As a Tier X ship, Worcester gets access to a unique Legendary Module named "Enhanced Countermeasures". This consumable increases by 20% the duration of Hydroacoustic Search and Defensive Fire; additionally, it increases by 10% the duration of Surveillance Radar. Aesthetics “Design can be art. Design can be aesthetics. Design is so simple, that's why it is so complicated.” - Paul Rand This class of light cruisers, like those before it, were based on the hull of the Brooklyn class cruisers, which gives them an interesting appearance when looking at their bow from an oblique angle. The superstructure is not cramped, and the funnels don't have that "crooked" aspect that Cleveland-class cruisers have. The gun turrets, unlike Seattle's, are not overly wide nor tall, they give an interesting flair to the design which certainly makes it stand out from its predecessors. Conclusion “Any fool can know. The point is to understand.” - Albert Einstein This light cruiser is a challenging ship to master at the beginning, but once one gets used to the shell arcs, the odd engine acceleration, and the idea of being a support ship that has damage-dealing potential; it is one of the most enjoyable ships to play in my book. In my opinion, the grind to Worcester is worthwhile, and a triple division of Worcester's is a frightening sight to behold. "Ad Astra Per Aspera" Phantom out. References and resources Baterman, T. & Yarnall, P. (May, 2018). USS Worcester (CL 144). NavSource Online: Cruiser Photo Archive. Recovered from: https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/144/04144.htm GlobalSecurity.org. (July, 2011). CL-144 Worcester. Military. Retrieved from: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cl-144.htm Wargaming.net. (2018). Upgrades. Retrieved from: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Upgrades#Enhanced_Countermeasures Wargaming.net. (2018). Worcester. Retrieved from: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Worcester Wikipedia. (2018). Courageous-class battlecruiser. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous-class_battlecruiser Wikipedia. (2018). 6"/47 caliber gun. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6"/47_caliber_gun Quotes recovered from Goodreads, website: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes Armor scheme GIF created with GIF Maker, website: http://gifmaker.org/ In-game images and icons recovered from the Wargaming Wiki, all credit goes to their respective authors. Other images recovered from Google Images.
  4. I know, it's a dead horse but I'm going to beat it some more The uptiering of T8 boats into T10 matches seems the norm now, and it's really not fair to the players that are grinding out T8's to get T9's. Why can't T10's battle with 9 or 10 boats? Or give an option to be uptiered if the player wishes too otherwise they can just wait to fill a T8 battle. Both my kids have stopped playing because after T5 they felt like the game was against them, they stopped having fun and we're killed so fast that they learned nothing. There has to be a way to keep the game fun for new players, uptiered in a new boat with limited experience isn't good for the player base. The "old" player base doesn't want potatoes in the higher tiers, then why does the game uptier them into tiers they don't even have boats for?
  5. To round out our ranked Commentary for the past season, we are going to different Russian Ship: the Khabarovsk. This game I try to work with my team but instead I have to work for them to win, what should have been a steamroll. No video on Friday, as that's when I get back from Vacation. Going to make a special video this weekend, and some more of these so that there is a new video next Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Thank you for watching.
  6. Trying something new on my Youtube channel today! I take the time to review every Tier 10 in 15 words or less. It took longer than you think. Let me know what you all think. I hope you guys enjoy it.
  7. PTS Tier 10?

    Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but one of the missions is to play a battle in a tier 10 ship, but all the tier 10 ships require 500,000 XP to research, so... Is there some magic way to generate that before the public test actually ends? Never mind, I figured it out. I hadn't looked at the Arsenal yet and didn't realize this was Wargamings way of getting me to buy a tier 10 and get the full PTS ride. I love these little puzzles. Like when I used to read the back of my cereal box as a kid. Ah, nostalgia!
  8. Great WoW's streamer!

    Check out Rick and show your support! https://www.twitch.tv/rickjoshi1765 He's live right now.
  9. Tier 10 Permanent Camo

    So I was just sitting here playing co-op and observed how dismally low the payout was with my Hindenburg and Minotaur, even when using the best temp camo I had that offered the most of everything. On a whim, I purchased the permanent camo for the Hindenburg and now I am a believer. The 5000 doubloons was well worth the investment because now I make money every game. Permacamo for high tiers; it works. Can confirm.
  10. It just occurred to me as I was sipping my coffee and reading some “What tier 10 should I grind?” thread that when the US cruiser line splits, anyone and everyone who owns a Cleveland will suddenly have access to tier 10 rentals for clan battles - Including people who have never played a game beyond tier six in their lives. Of course, I then had to consider that they will suddenly own a tier 8 ship and be at the mercy of a match maker that cares not for the player’s experience, or inexperience, as the case may be. Brutal. The harsh reality of it almost put me off my bagel. Almost.
  11. Hey everyone, Isaac here and I'm back with another video on the ST changes/current stats of the Stalingrad tier 10 (battle)cruiser! Do you think the ship is balanced as is? Could her survivability be too high with the 32mm plating? Post below and lets get some feedback going back to WG! Also, leave a comment in the comments section of the video letting me know what you thought of the stats. Heck, even let me know what you thought of my first foray out with the KGV and if you'd like to see more of these things from the channel! Click thumbs up if you liked it, thumbs down if you hated it. Be sure to click that subscribe button, it really helps me out when you do! As always, take care and God bless!
  12. To start off, I would like to note that this post will only be addressing the balancing of the tier 10 carriers, although some of the issues are shared throughout the entire class. Carriers have always been in a strange spot in regards to balancing, and in many ways it seems that CV gameplay and balancing is lagging behind the rest of the game. I've played CVs since CBT, and truly enjoy the class, but find it extremely frustrating when there are long standing balance issues which have not been addressed. For the sake of providing legitimacy to my arguments below: The Problem with Midway: I want to touch on the Midway first, since the latest news from the WoWS Development Facebook Page is that she is going to be nerfed, having her hanger size reduced from 136 planes to 96 planes (almost a 30% hanger nerf). While I agree that the Midway needs changes, I feel this approach is a crude and simplified solution to a more complicated problem. Midway has gone through a number of changes over the years, but I will be focusing on the balancing issues with her current setup. Firstly, tier 8 planes on a tier 10 ship. This was a balancing option explored by WG through the Kaga (tier 6 planes on a tier 7 ship), and this option was applied to Midway in an attempt to offset her advantage in squad size and hanger capacity. While on paper this may seem like a good idea, theoretically mitigating her air power by making her planes slower and more vulnerable, it caused a number of flow-down issues. Weaker planes mean that CV captains are more likely to go for targets with less AA, and less likely to try and push risky strikes through enemy AA. Ultimately, this means that the targets of choice become bottom tier ships and destroyers. Having a carrier two tiers higher than you focus you down is not a pleasant experience, and this only leads to frustration when players feel powerless. While some destroyers are equipped to deal with plane threats, many lack the raw DPS, or defensive fire, to deter planes. Furthermore, destroyers which rely on their torpedoes can be completely negated by aircraft spotting, again creating a frustrating situation where players feel powerless. Unfortunately, while this was always a problem, it is even more serious with the Midway's current setup due to the weaker tier 8 planes. Furthermore, tier 8 planes also lead to frustration from the carrier captain's perspective. While against lower tier ships, or ships with poor AA, you will perform extremely strongly, this performance drops off significantly against ships with better AA protection. At tier 10, there is a multitude of vessels which field extremely strong AA, all of which can easily defeat your squads of tier 8 planes. Even ships with "mediocre" AA at tier 10 will still cause casualties against tier 8 planes. If the enemy decides to ball up, concentrating all their AA, even ships with poor AA become challenging targets. If the matchmaker throws you against a collection of ships with strong AA, it is entirely possible you will be unable to effectively strike targets, relying on your team to weaken enemy AA, or for the enemy ships to spread out. This situation can be extremely frustrating for the carrier player, and it can feel like your ability to be effective in game is decided by a throw of the dice. While player skill no doubt has a role, there are still situations where players feel powerless against enemy AA strength/concentration. While the Midway gained striking power after her planes got downtiered, this change is often a "double or nothing" situation. Either you can obliterate entire flanks of lower tier ships/ships with poor AA, or you are forced to play passively - else lose planes futilely to enemy AA. Again, this situation is frustrating and undesirable. Secondly, slow rearm time is a trait of USN CVs, however the main time-loss between strikes is spent by planes traveling between the CV and the target. Combat distances are farther at tier 10, and the Midway's rather poor concealment forces it to keep its distance from the front-line. You will almost always need upwards of two minutes between strikes, meaning the number of strikes per game is severely limited. This problem is magnified by the tier 8 planes, which are significantly slower than Midway's old flightdeck, or their IJN counterparts on the Hakuryu. This restriction forces carrier players to be selective in their targets, since a failed strike will cost them precious time. Unlike a battleship which fires every 30 seconds, (or other ship classes), carriers cannot afford to take chances. This problem is especially relevant to the Midway, and again results in carrier players focusing lower tiered ships, ships which are vulnerable. The most vulnerable ships tend to have weaker AA, and are isolated from the rest of their team - namely destroyers. Yet again, a situation is created where players feel powerless and frustrated. If WG implements the proposed fix published on the Developer Facebook page, both these two problems will be further magnified. The hanger capacity of a carrier is its healthbar - without planes, a CV is little more than a barge. Losing 40 planes is almost a 30% reduction in the ability of the Midway to sustain a fight. If the Yamato lost 30% of her HP, players would be forced to play her more passively, and take less risks. The same will occur with the Midway, with carrier captains forced to choose their targets even more restrictively than before. Activities such as spotting enemy ships, defending against enemy aircraft near enemy AA, and striking important targets if they have AA cover, all become more risky. Having plane reserves is the difference between pushing a strike against a low health tier 10 ship, or instead targeting the isolated tier 8 with limited impact on the game's outcome. It is the difference between defending an allied ship against enemy strike aircraft, and instead withholding fighters out of fear of running out later in the match. In my opinion, such a change would be incredibly harmful to carrier gameplay at tier 10, further exacerbating existing problems. The Problem with Hakuryu: The Hakuryu's recent problems mainly stem from the current iteration of the Midway. Previously she had an advantage in torpedo power (12 vs 6), but that was lost after Midway gained a second torpedo squadron, although Midway's planes are significantly weaker. Most importantly, this made Midway much stronger at cross-dropping destroyers, something that Hakuryu had been stronger at previously. While Midway's fighters have more recently been nerfed, they still trump those of the Hakuryu, meaning that the Hakuryu has weaker fighters, while also losing the edge in alpha strike. Another existing issue with Hakuryu was the weakness of her dive-bombers compared to the USN equivalent. This means that Hakuryu's dive-bombers are primarily used to start fires, focusing on DoT (damage over time), rather than alpha damage. However, the USN dive-bombers have the best of both worlds, with excellent fire-starting capacity, and good alpha damage. This gap in performance become more significant once the USN CVs tier 8-10 gained access to AP bombs, which have the ability to deal crippling damage against certain targets. Previously, this difference was justified by the weaker torpedo armament on Midway, however this is no longer the case. Meaning that in regards to alpha capacity and DoT capacity, Midway has stronger torpedo bombers and dive bombers. The key difference which keeps the Hakuryu from being completely outclassed is that Hakuryu retains her tier 10 planes, which are faster and with more HP than the Midway's. The other small advantage is that Hakuryu has her planes split into 8 squads, rather than Midway's 6, giving her a theoretical edge in spotting and scouting. However, in practice, the 6 Midway squadrons are more than adequate, and the laggy CV UI prevents players from micro managing Hakuryu's 8 squads separately at the same time. As such, while the Hakuryu is by no means a "bad" tier 10, nor would I call her "weak", she has certainly lost most of what set her apart from the Midway. While it would be nice to see some small improvements to her dive-bomber armament, changes should be aimed at restoring some advantages over the Midway. It is perfectly fine for one tier 10 CV to be weaker in certain areas than the other, but it must also be stronger in some areas in return. Potential Solutions: The problem with CV balancing is a complicated one, and thus finding a good solution is difficult, and at times elusive. I'd like to propose a few ideas, mainly centered around the balancing of the two tier 10 carriers. Remove Midway's "Double or Nothing" Paradigm: Currently Midway is balanced around having a massive strike payload, offset by weaker tier 8 planes. This however means that the Midway completely overpowers lower tier ships, and those who are vulnerable (such as destroyers). On the flip side, this massive payload is useless when up against ships with strong AA, or even multiple ships with mediocre AA if their auras are overlapped. This situation is frustrating, and it often feels that your ability to contribute is decided by a dice roll. Instead, I propose that Midway's loadout be altered, with a weaker payload, but stronger and faster planes. This way, carrier captains would have more strikes per game, and a wider range of potential targets. This flexibility means that carrier captains can remain effective, of course, AA ships would still inflict considerable casualties, but at least carrier players would have the ability to push strikes through against damaged AA ships, or masses of ships with weaker AA. Furthermore, a weaker payload per strike means less situations where players are obliterated in a single strike - a situation which is frustrating for players. While the Midway's average damage would remain comparable, the damage would be spread out over more strikes, and more targets. This lightens the pressure for CV players to make every strike count, affording them the ability to attack riskier targets. This same change can be applied to the Hakuryu, with a lowered alpha strike in return for faster plane speeds, meaning damage is spread over more strikes per game. Encourage Carriers to Split Strike Packages: Currently, the best way to attack enemy ships in most scenarios is to stack squads together, and attack in a single wave, overwhelming AA defenses to land as many hits as possible. This is often done separately with torpedo bombers and dive-bombers, to force ships to repair before hitting them with a DoT effect. In the status quo, all the alpha damage of the strike is focused against a single enemy ship, often leading to their destruction in a single strike (not a fun experience). If carrier players had an incentive to split their squads up, and attack different targets simultaneously, this damage would be spread over multiple ships. Again, by spreading damage out over multiple separate strikes, CV gameplay becomes more reliable, and less frustrating for both sides. Currently, the main issues standing in the way of this shift in striking paradigm are: The slow carrier user interface. The lag when switching between squads is often a hard cap on your ability to micromanage multiple squads at the same time. Even the delay when issuing orders to squads can be frustrating. On lower tier CVs with only a couple squads, this is not so much of an issue, but on a ship such as the Hakuryu controlling 8 separate squads simultaneously is almost impossible due to this delay. Because of this, it is much easier to simply mass squads together, effectively controlling two or three torpedo/dive bomber squads as a single entity. AA mechanics. Due to how AA damage is calculated, and how focus fire (control+click) works currently, it is more efficient to send all squads in at once against a single target. If the strike paradigm is to change, the AA mechanics would need to be reworked. One potential option would be to change it so that all squads in an AA aura receive equal damage at all times. Plane HP. This is linked to the AA mechanics, but is especially a problem on the Midway, with its undertiered planes. I would suggest that the alpha damage of each squad be reduced, but in return their survivability and speed increased. Plane rearm times. The current rearm times are more supportive of large, massed strikes. This is partly due to the fact that the rearm time of planes is relatively short compared to the time it takes them to travel between the CV and their target/s. If their travel time was shorter (by making planes faster), and their rearm time was longer, this balance would shift. As one potential option, a carrier would only be able to rearm one squad at a time. Carriers would then be more efficient if they staggered their strike squads, staggering their rearming, and attacking in multiple smaller strike waves rather than trying to mass their planes for a single large one. Getting Rid of the Deplane-ing Meta: This idea is no doubt a controversial one, and I admit I have not fully explored the consequences of this suggestion. With the analogy of a CV's hanger capacity as their equivalent of a healthbar, I suggest a method through which they can "heal", or in this case, recover more plane reserves. For example, once deplaned, a CV player might gain "X" many fighter planes after a certain period of time (perhaps justified as reinforcements from off-map). If the CV is deplaned again, the period of time before the next set of "X" fighter plane reinforcements arrive increases. In this proposal, a CV which loses all their planes is not rendered completely useless, however the objective of deplane-ing an enemy CV remains meaningful. This makes CV gameplay more forgiving, and provides a bit of flexibility for CV players to partake in more risky activities such as spotting, or defending allied ships against enemy aircraft. Furthermore, it lessens the impact of the allied CV getting deplaned on the rest of the team. Currently, a deplaned CV is of very little help to the team, and the team loses access to spotting and fighter protection - often putting them at a significant disadvantage. Through this proposal, this disadvantage, while still present, is reduced. The result is to hopefully reduce the frustration among a team when their CV loses the air war, and to provide a more forgiving experience for CV players who get deplaned. The Introduction of Radio-Range to Force Carriers Closer to the Battle: This was an idea suggested some time ago by Little White Mouse (please correct me if I am wrong). Similar to in World of Tanks, radio range in Warships would limit the distance at which carriers could render enemy ships. While you would still see them on the mini-map, their exact locations in the bird's-eye view would only appear if they were within this radio range. This would force carriers to move closer to the front-lines, instead of running to the back of the map. As a result, this reduces the travel time of planes between the CV and potential targets, increasing the number of strikes per game, and making CV damage more reliable since it is spread over more strikes, and more targets. Futhermore, it adds another element to CV gameplay. While of course CVs won't be fighting on the vanguard, they will not longer be so safe from flanking DDs, or enemy fighters which might spot them. In this way, it forces CV players to be more engaged in the gameplay, since it is now in their best interests to keep spotting potential flanking ships, and to prevent stray enemy fighters from spotting them. Concerning the Midway Rework Proposal on the Developer Facebook Page: I totally disagree with this course of action, and feel it will only make matters worse. While in my opinion, Midway does need to be nerfed (and was over-buffed into her current state), these changes can be done in small steps through my first suggestion. Massive changes like knocking out 30% of her hanger capacity will not help the core problems in her balancing. In conclusion, oh man this turned out a lot longer than I thought it would. If you made it this far, I thank you for reading through my prattling, and I hope I got my points across. The implementation of carrier gameplay is really something special about World of Warships, and something that made it stick out above the crowd for me. Balancing such a unique class is by no means an easy job, but I feel that it is an area which WG has neglected over the past few years. I sincerely hope that CV balance is something that will be given a serious look, as I truly believe that it has the potential to be an extremely positive aspect of the game.
  13. Just from a fairness point of view, a player should at least be allowed by the economy to break even at T10, without using any boosts. The admission from WG that having lower tiers to be in the same MM bracket with T10 ships solely for them to get crapon is bad enough. Let's boost this economy now, instead of in two years. WoT went through the same thing and WG ultimately had to boost income.
  14. Need Help with Khabarovsk

    Hello everyone! Yes, the title says it all. I need help with apparently one of the best ships in the game. Sad, I know. I had no trouble with the Tashkent. 0 worries. In fact, it's one of my favorite ships right now. Some issues I'm having with Khaba: 1. The range decrease from Tashkent 2. The larger size and crappier maneuverability 3. Somehow everyone wants to focus me Stats for reference: (The 60% WR is probs luck lol)
  15. My First Tier 10

    Well, looks like I finally made it! Snuck it in just hours before I hit my 1 year anniversary of playing the game for real, I finally got the tier 10 cruiser, Des Moines! And to emphasize this occasion, instead of a long drawn out brag and life story, I decided a song would be better. Because what the hell is the point of a brag thread if your brag is the same as everyone else? That is just uneventful. So, to the tune of Cecilia and the Satellite (because that is a good song and you know it): (custom lyrics are below) And no brag thread is complete without the pictures, so in the order they appear in the song which is the order of acquisition I ended up taking, here we go: Ok, rest of the stuff I think my threat should include since I got one shot at this: Best Moment: Pensacola in ranked. I really don't get still to this day why people hated tier 7 ranked, but to each there own. Worst Moment: Every game in Omaha. Please wargaming in the name of god fix this ship! And throw a bone to Emerald as well these 2 both need help badly. Highest Damage: 130k in New Orleans. I had a 139k game in Atago but I discredit it as legit cause the damage number came from someone insisting on ramming me, and in my book ramming is not legitimate unless it is bow on to bow on, so meh. Highest Number of Kills: Kraken in St. Louis. Yes, we all seal club a little here and there, mine just happened to come with a trophy one time. If I had to do something differently: Had a better tutorial to teach me actual USN cruiser mechanics. Would have been nice to know about auto-bounce before I started on Pensacola. Most Underestimated Thing About The Line: Pensacola. For real, it is not a ship that you can run around in and flank the enemy in with continuous kiting, it requires more bow-on tanking. And yes, I hope you get hit in the cit every time you go broadside in her, I think it was clear at tier 2 that if you go broadside you eat dirt. If you could change one thing: Give the USN cruisers some more respectable secondaries that have more damage-per-shell and a faster reload. The USN is the only line without torpedoes, and if you find your flank collapsed and you have to retreat, a little tool to help keep the DD's away would be nice. If you had to nerf one thing: Knock the AA down just a really small smidge. Like, maybe 2-3 dps per gun. IDK I felt like this was an important thing to reflect on and so I did. What, some days you got to be a mirror! Thoughts on the new line split: I am going to miss these guys at the tiers they are at, I really am. In some way, I feel like I have to say goodbye to them, because when I wake up the next day, they are not going to play the same. What are my current plans? Get Missouri - I am saving up every single bit of free Xp for it, so yeah, I am going to get it the hard way. Finish the other cruiser lines - Cruiser for life man, but USN first. Now that it is out of the way, got to cross some more finish lines Mid-Ship crisis - Right now I am just taking a bit of a break, cause why not? I just crossed the finish line dude, I need to rest. Anyway, this has been my un-eventful brag thread. Feel free to speak your mind on it. Edit: Cause I want to show the world that I am a USN cruiser player: Yes, they are all in my port. And I plan on getting Marblehead and going through ranked for Flint, and crossing any other bridge that I must to obtain every single USN cruiser that I can.
  16. As per title says, We knew French BB will come to live server soon. Thus, we knew what they will put in tech tree. 3 - Danton 4 - Courbet 5 - Bretagne 6 - Normandie 7 - Lyon 8 - Richelieu 9 - Alsace However, Tier 10 still remained unknown for the fact that this is made up by Wargaming. So we are going to make a bet which name will be represent this ship. rules: pick 2 of the best name you have in mind and give a reason why you want this ship to have this name. All names I put in poll came from what French used in their naming convention if you have another outside what I provided, feel free to express it. Personally, My bet goes on Charlemagne and Flandre - Charlemagne: name looks cool and as a ex-NF player, I always remember BB-6 of French ship with unique design. - Flandre: I'm a bit of Touhou fan so yeah, how I picked this name up What's yours? let's share what you have in mind P.S Jean Bart: reserved for upcoming Tier 8 French Battleships. Strasbourg: I'm a bit salty about this ship not in tech tree.
  17. With the upcoming rental ships for next patch, I'm excited to be able to play them in random battles as well to see how they fit. However... Shouldn't the rental ships and their tech tree versions be lumped together? I really don't think they should be considered separate ships to have to "retrain" your commander. This is going to be frustrating for quite a lot of players who tried the rentals in Random Battles, grind up to the ship & buy it, only to finally learn that after all that time, they still have to retrain the captain to said ship. Overall feedback: Mark the rental ships and their tech tree versions as interchangeable for Captains. (***Note: I'm not asking to make the rental ships "Premium" versions like with the Haifuri ships so as to be interchangeable with all commanders of the same nation***) Edit: nevermind. Missed out on a piece of the PT notes :P
  18. I would love to see the Super Akizuki and what ever the Russians can decide to make for a paper ship to finish the tier line. Thoughts? or do you guys think they'll never give it to us?
  19. So yeah. I just got home from work and hopped onto my computer, pulled up YouTube and the first video I saw under my suggested vids was from iChaseGaming, and the title is talking about no CVs allowed for first season of WoWS Clan Wars. So yeah. I look over at the side bar and who do I see? A response from Femennenly! And boy was her response rather justified! Okay, so that's one of two super unicum players (the other being farazelleth) that flat out sold their tier 10 CV (Midway doesn't count because the USN CV line is a complete joke) And then, I look over at my side bar and i see NoZoupForYou's response! Hmmmm, maybe he'll have a better view on it... .....Nope.... Seriously, I just recently started learning how to properly play carriers by using Farazelleth's guides and noticing a vast increase in my abilities. Granted I'm nowhere near him or Fem's skill level, or alot of other people who play them, nor will I ever be near them in skill. So in all of this we've got the following that have become true: 1. WarGaming said that in 2017 they would be doing a massive rework of Carriers and how they play and how they are controlled (the UI is terrible and buggy). The results have determined that was a lie. 2. WarGaming said that there would be no new premium carriers or new carrier tech tree lines until the CV overhaul was completed. Kaga and Enterprise have determined that was a lie. 3. WarGaming stated that the Graf Zeppelin was fine in it's final iteration before pushing it out just to have something for GamesCom in Germany this summer. Player reaction and feedback, including the firing of iChaseGaming for his very right and very correct comments on the GZ, have determined that was a lie. 4. WarGaming have now stated that there will be no carriers in Clan Wars because it makes things imbalanced and the "stress and exhaustion" of being under constant pressure isn't fun. I'm detecting a pattern here, so unless they change their minds and go with a 1/2/2/2 set up (CV/BB/CL/DD) or a 0/2/3/2 - 0/2/2/3 alternates, I'm gonna predict that the above is gonna also be a lie. BONUS FACT: They're gonna be loaning out Shimakazes, Zaos, and Grosse Kurfursts to people who don't own tier 10 ships. Well that's brilliant! One of 2 scenarios is going to present itself: A. The Kurfursts are gonna be useless because having that many Zaos they will be burned to death as soon as they are spotted and within range. B. The Kurfursts are gonna be useless because having that many Shimakaze torpedo walls coming their direction, even with Hydro going, will be impossible to dodge them all. BONUS FACT 2: They claim that having carriers spotting DDs put undue stress and negation on torpedo attacks from said DD, but fail to realize that with the potential proliferation of Moskva radar, DDs can't get close enough for effective torpedo attacks anyway without being radared and subsequently focus-fired by 7 people. BONUS FACT 3: Since the above will be true in most regards, and seeings how all the "nerfs" to the Khaba have been token gestures AT BEST, the most used DD for Clan Wars is going to be the Khabarovsk because even slightly above average Khaba drivers don't use smoke. They run the heal and speed-tank enemies while pew-pewing with their mini flamethrowers at near max range. Based upon all of the above, here's my prediction for T10 Clan Wars Season 1 fleet compositions: A. 1x Yamato, 4x Moskva, 3x Des Moines/Henri IV B. 1x Yamato, 2x Moskva, 4x Khabarovsk C. 1x Yamato, 1x Moskva, 5x Khabarovsk D. 1x Kurfurst, 5x Zao, 1x Shimakaze E. 1x Kurfurst, 6x Shimakaze F. 1x Moskva/Des Moines/Henri IV, 6x Khabarovsk/Shimakaze There's little point in bringing anything but the Yamato (lol Overmatch guns) except for the Kurfurst because Oprah: You get a T10! And you get a T10! And you get a T10! EVERYBODY GETS A T10!!!! The only reason you'd bring a Des Moines over a Moskva would be the fire rate and the longer duration Radar because hey, no CVs so who gives a f*ck about AA. No point in bringing a Minotaur because their smoke will be torpedo central and they have no radar unless they give up their smoke, in which case "Take me down to Citadel City". And also, no CVs so who gives a f*ck about their long-range stock AA DPS of 300+. The only reason you'd bring Shimakazes over Khabarovsk is for sending out 20km skill walls every 30 seconds non-stop if you had at least 5 of them rotating their launches. Otherwise, why even bother with smoke at all when the Khaba can just speed-tank everything and dictate the terms of the engagements while LOLFIRESPAM'ing everything it wants with relative impunity. Oh, got hit and set on fire? Heal.
  20. With the stack of flags from the event I tried to finish as many techtrees as I could. First was the Zao, then the Hindenburg, the unluckly Henri IV and now the Conqueror as number 14. I'm only at T7 with the VMF cruisers so there will be no push to T10 even I have enough flags left. And we don't talk about carriers. 138 ships in port.
  21. Why I don't play my Des Moines...

    ...unless there's some mission like the current anniversary missions... It took me five tries to get 500k credits with a Des Moines... FIVE. FREAKING. TRIES. It doesn't matter what everyone else says; I can't make the ship work; which is pathetic; when you consider the reason I got into WoWs is because I wanted to drive one. Get close; die. Stay farther away; die. Try to find cover and do what many people say; die. Run away screaking like a little girl and hide in a corner; team dies, then I die. My congenitral inability to develope useful skills, and just as rotten luck; (go somewhere; crickets chirping; do no damage and get griped at; go somewhere else next time, no one in sight, turn a corner, whole enemy team is there, die, do no damage, get griped at...) I don't play my Des Moines because it's not worth the headaches and frustration that come from not being able to make it perform... ...even after a 105 games in it, (+25 in Co-op,) I still suck so bad in it it hurts... ...time to put it away again until next anniversary I guess.
  22. 10th Battle in New Zao

    I started up the IJN cruiser line a long time ago. Got to Aoba and just stopped. Ugh. Then I got all of the ARP Myokos and slowly learned how to play an IJN CA. Decided I wanted a 155 Mogami - good choice BTW. Today I unlocked the Zao. This is my 10th battle: I think she's working as intended! BTW some may think my positioning at the start is a mistake. It was a calculated risk and I almost got deleted for it...
  23. Hello players, I've been working on my game and got a few of the tree's to tier 10, Hindenburg, Grober Kurfurst and Des Moines. I like the Cruisers the most so I've been thinking of getting the Permanent Camouflage's for the 2 I have. My question/Problem is the cost versus the benefits. Type 20 5000 -3% to detectability range. +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship. -50% to the cost of ship's post-battle service. +20% credits earned in the battle. +100% to experience earned in the battle. Why do I need 100% XP on a T10 ship at 5000 Gold? Does anyone buy this, if so do you think its worth it. I don't mind buying gold at all but the payback isn't worth it to me as I see it now. I'm hoping I'm missing something so I'm asking you, the player base to see if I am. If not are there any rumors that this will change because it was a brain fart when created? Thank you for your replies. Enjoy your day/game!
  24. Tier 10 achieved!

    I got my first Tier 10 a few days ago. after a few...thousand battles i did something i thought i would never do :D all i need now is to get her premium camo so i dont lose hundreds of thousands of credits, and some tips and tricks :D so please help me play yamato! and donate 5k doubloons plz