Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cruiser' or 'matchmaking'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - Asia Language Based Communities
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
    • 한국어 커뮤니티
  • Mod Section
    • Player Modifications
  • Public Test Forums
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
  • Locked Threads
    • Locked Threads

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


Drag Interests

Found 78 results

  1. Teaser on the new Swedish Pan-EU destroyers makes me thinking on possible premium cruisers. Hence, i make this topic as a stress relief after PR disaster. Here is my suggestion for the Pan-EU premium cruisers Canarias , T-VI? A Spanish heavy cruiser based on the British County-class, Canarias was the flagship of the Nationalist side during the civil war. She was armed with the same 203mm gun, but exchanged torpedo bulge for better internal protection and 33 knot speed. Moreover, she has more torpedo tubes compared to her half-sister. Gameplay should be relatively similar to Devonshire. HSwMS Tre Kronor , T-VIII? A 7,500 ton light cruiser of the Swedish Navy, Tre Kronor is one of the last modern cruisers ever completed. She was lightly armored with 70mm belt, but has respectable speed of 33 knots and decent AA. The key is her main battery of Bofors 152mm/53 gun (a triple forward and two doubles aft), capable of firing a shell 15 rounds per minute at 900m/s. She also has reasonably modern sensors and radars from the British. In terms of gameplay, i think she would be very similar to Chapayev, kiter and radar support (with lesser range). HNLMS De Ruyter (Endracht-class), T-IX or X? De Ruyter is one of De Zeven Provincien-class cruisers built for the Royal Netherlands Navy. She weighted around 14,000 ton, yet has barely any armor of which her belt was only 76mm thick at best. Speed is modest at 32 knots, but being more modern than Tre Kronor, she has many modern sensors and of course, DAKKA! She has the same Bofors guns, but were enhanced and has higher fire rate, completed by an extensive AA battery. This thing, is Friesland on cracks and citadels. What do you guys think?
  2. Hi Wargameing Dev team, I would like to suggest a complete Pan-Europe Destroyer line. With the future release of the Friseland (mmmm..... fries......) and combining Blyskawica to Pan-Europe faction, World of Warships will now have 11 factions to choose from. 7 Nations and 4 Group of Nations. T1 Afonso de Albuquerque (PT) Armament: 4 - 120 mm guns (4 x 1) 2 - 76 mm guns (2 x 1) 4 - 40 mm AA guns (4 x 1) Note: T1 Sloop / Aviso. Considered as a T1 cruiser in the game. T2 Aetos (GR) Armament: 4 - 4 in (102 mm)/50 guns (4 x 1) 4 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (4 x 1) Note: Originally built for the Argentines but later sold to the Greeks T3 Alsedo (EE) Armament: 4 - 4 in (102 mm)/60 guns (4 x 1) 1 - 2 pdr (40 mm) pom-pom Mk. II (1 x 1) 2 - 0.30 in (7.62 mm) MG (2 x 1) 9 - 18 in (450 mm) torpedo tubes (3 x 3) Note: Originally Avtroil (Russian Orfey Class), Captured by Britain 1918, gave it to Estonia, then Sold to Peru 1933 as Almirante Villiar (See Pan America Destroyer Tech Tree Suggestion) T4 Lennuk (EE) Armament: 5 - 4 in (102 mm)/60 guns (5 x 1) 1 - 2.5 in (63.3 mm) Model 1916 (1 x 1) 3 - 0.30 in (7.62 mm) MG (3 x 1) 9 - 18 in (457 mm) torpedo tubes (3 x 3) Note: Originally Miklucho Maklai (Russian Izyaslav Class), Captured by Britain 1918, gave it to Estonia, then Sold to Peru 1933 as Alimarnte Guise (See Pan America Destroyer Tech Tree Suggestion) T5 Alcala Galiano (ES) Armament: 5 - 4.7 in (120 mm)/45 guns (5 x 1) 1 - 3 in (76 mm) AA guns (1 x 1) 6 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 3) Note: Also a possible T5 Pan America Destroyer (Juan de Garay [AR]) See Pan America Destroyer Tech Tree Suggestion or T5 Douro (PT) Armament: 4 - 4.7 in (119 mm)/45 guns (4 x 1) 2 - 2 pdr (40 mm) AA guns (2 x 1) 8 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 4) Note: Also a possible T5 Pan America Destroyer (Antioquia [CO]) See Pan America Destroyer Tech Tree Suggestion T6 Regele Ferdinand (RO) Armament: 5 - 4.7 in (120 mm)/50 guns (5 x 1) 1 - 3 in (76 mm) AA guns (1 x 1) 2 - 1.6 in (40 mm) AA guns (2 x 1) 6 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (3 x 3) Note: None T7 Grom (PL) Armament: 7 - 4.7 in (120 mm)/50 guns (3 × 2, 1 × 1) 4 - 1.6 in (40 mm) AA guns (2 × 2) 8 - 0.52 in (13.2 mm) MG (4 × 2) 6 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 × 3) Note: Blyskawica sister and Lead of her Class Note: Same guns found in Regele Ferdinand. 4.7 in (120 mm)/50 made by Bofors From T8 to T10, Netherlands and Sweden were capable of building ships after WW2. Spain went to civil war and is in financial ruin but still managed to build their own ship with US 5 in (127 mm) as optional armament as well as US sold Spain some of their Fletcher, A.M. Summer, and Gearing Class surplus. Greece dont have the finance to build their own ships, hence bought American surplus Fletchers, A.M. Summers, and Gearings. Portugal did not re-arm their navy after WW2. Estonia was absorbed by the Soviet Union. Poland and Roamnia is under the Soviet block, hance ships are protected by Soviet Union Navy Ships or transferred Soviet surplus. Sweden Branch (With Torpedo) T8 Oland (SE) Armament: 4 - 4.7 in (120 mm)/45 cal Bofors M/44 (2 x 2) 7 - 1.6 in (40 mm)/56 cal Bofors M/36 (2 x 2 and 3 x 1) 8 - 0.79 in (20 mm)/60 cal Bofors M/40 (2 x 4) 6 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tube (3 x 2) Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. T9 Halland (SE) Armament: 4 - 4.7 in (120 mm) Bofors guns m/50 (2 × 2) 2 - 2.2 in (57 mm) Bofors guns m/50 (1 × 2) 6 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors AA guns m/48 (6 × 1) 8 - 21.0 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (1 × 5 and 1 × 3) "Anti Submarine Mortar" Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. T10 Hälsingland (SE) Armament: 4 - 4.7 in (120 mm) Bofors guns m/44 (2×2) 7 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors AA guns m/48 (7×1) 6 - 21.0 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (1 x 6) "Anti Submarine Mortar" Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. Netherlands Branch (Without Torpedo) T8 Gerard Callenburgh Armament: 5 - 4.7 in (120 mm) guns (2 × 2 and 1 × 1) 4 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (2 x 2) 4 - 0.79 in (20 mm) Oerlikon guns (2 x 2) Note: Originally armed with torpedoes, would be wise to remove them as to teach players on their support role and AA specialty like the Friseland. Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. T9 Holland (NL) Armament: 4 - 4.7 in (120 mm) Bofors guns (2×2) 1 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors AA gun (1 x 1) More can be added "Anti Submarine Mortars" Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. T10 Groningen (NL) Armament: 4 - 4.7 in (120 mm) Bofors guns (2 × 2) 6 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors AA guns (6 × 1) "Anti Submarine Mortars" Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. Note: Friseland Sister ship Spain Branch (No Torpedo at T9 and T10) T8 Audaz (ES) Armament: (Original) 5 - 4.1 in (105 mm)/45 DP guns (5 x 1) Too small for T8 Armament: (WG Modified) Initial: 5 - 4.7 in (120mm)/50 guns (5 x 1) Upgradeable to: 5 - 5 in (127 mm)/38 guns (5 x 1) US Fletcher Surplus 4 - 1.5 in (37 mm) AA guns (4 x 1) 8 - 0.79 in(20 mm) AA guns (4 x 2) 6 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (3 x 2) Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. Note: Torpedo tubes were removed in later years. T9 Oquendo (ES) Armament: (Hull A) Initial: 4 - 4.7 in (120mm)/50 guns (2 x 2) Upgradeable to: 4 - 5 in (127 mm)/38 guns (2 x 2) US Gearing Surplus 6 - 1.6 in (40mm)/Bofors 40 guns (3 x 2) Armament: (Hull B) Initial: 6 - 4.7 in (120mm)/50 guns (2 x 2) Upgradeable to: 6 - 5 in (127 mm)/38 guns (2 x 2) 6 - 1.6 in (40mm)/Bofors 40 guns (3 x 2) Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. Note: Spanish built destroyer. Completed 1963. Note: Torpedo tubes were removed in later years. T10 Roger de Lauria (ES) Armament: Initial: 6 - 4.7 in (120mm)/50 guns (2 x 2) Upgradeable to: 6 - 5 in (127 mm)/38 guns (2 x 2) US Gearing Surplus 6 - 1.6 in (40mm)/Bofors 40 guns (3 x 2) Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. Note: Spanish built destroyer. Completed 1969. Note: She is an improved and enlarged version of Oquendo Note: Torpedo tubes were removed in later years. US Surplus branch aquired by Spain and Greece T8 Niki (GR) Originally USS Eberle "Gleaves Class (US)" Armament: 4 - 5 in (127 mm)/38 DP guns (4 x 1) 4 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (2 × 2) 7 - 0.97 in (20 mm) Oerlikon guns (7 x 1) 5 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (1 × 5) T9 Lepanto (ES) Originally USS Capps "Fletcher Class (US)" or T9 Thyella (GR) Originally USS Bradford "Fletcher Class (US)" Armament: 5 - 5 in (127 mm)/38 guns (5 x 1) 10 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (5 x 2) 7 to 12 - 0.79 in (20 mm) Oerlikon guns (7 x 1 or 6 x 2) 10 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 × 5) T10 Miaoulis (GR) Originallt USS Ingraham "Allan M Summer Class" (US) Armament: 6 - 5 in (130 mm)/38 guns (3 x 2) [4 sec reload] 12 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (2 x 4 and 2 x 2) 10 - 0.79 in (20 mm) Oerlikon guns (10 x 1) 10 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 5) or T10 Langara (ES) Originally USS Leary "Gearing Class (US)" Armament: 6 - 5 in (127 mm)/38 guns (3 x 2) [3 sec reload] 12 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (2 x 4 and 2 x 2) 10 - 0.79 in (20 mm) Oerlikon guns (10 x 1) 10 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 5) Eastern Bloc / Destroyer Leader Branch T4 Mărăști or Mărășești (RO) Armament: (Modernized 1927) 4 - 4.7 in (120 mm) guns (2 × 2) 3 - 3.0 in (76 mm) AA guns (3 x 1) or (Hull C) 5 - 4.7 in (120 mm) guns (2 × 2 and 1 x 1) 2 - 3.0 in (76 mm) AA guns (2 x 1) 4 - 17.7 in (457 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 2) Note: Earliest access to twin mounted guns Note: T4 because of the small size and small number of torpedo tubes Note: T4 because her hull is old. Built from 1914 - 1918. Note: T4 since French destroyer leader Bourrasque class is also at T4 with 130 mm guns T5 Zagreb (YU) Armament: 4 - 4.7 in (120 mm) guns (4 × 1) 4 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (2 × 2) 2 - 0.59 in (15 mm) Skoda MG (2 x 1) 6 - 22 in (550 mm) torpedo tubes (2 × 3) Note: Sister ship Beograd was transferred to Germany (German Hydro?) Note: Sister ship Ljubljana was transferred to Italy (Italian SAP?) or T5 Burza (PL) Armament: 4 - 5.1 in (130 mm)/40 guns (4 × 1) 2 - 1.6 in (40 mm) AA guns (2 × 1) 6 - 550 mm/533 mm/450 mm torpedo tubes (2 × 3) Note: Grom 1928 sister. Note: Modified versions of the Bourrasque-class destroyers built for the Polish Navy. T6 Dubrovnik (YU) Armament: 4 - 5.5 in (140 mm)/56 guns (4 x 1) 2 - 3.29 in (83.5 mm) AA guns (2 x 1) 6 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (3 x 2) 2 - 0.59 in (15 mm) Skoda MG (2 x 1) 6 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 3) Note: Large destroyer built by UK for Yugoslav Navy T7 Split 1940 (YU) Armament: 5 - 5.5 in (140 mm)/56 guns (4 x 1) 5 - 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (3 x 2) 4 - 0.59 in (15 mm) Skoda MG (2 x 1) 6 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 3) Note: Large destroyer built by Yugoslavia. Note: Comissioned in 1958 with a completly different design. We will go with the original 1939 design for this. T8 Georgi Dimitrov (BG) Armament: 4 - 5.1 in (130 mm)/50 or /55 guns (2 x 2) 2 - 3.3 in (85 mm)/55 AA guns (2 x 1) 6 - 1.5 in (37 mm) AA guns (6 x 1) 6 to 10 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 3 possible upgrade to 2 x 5 like Ognevoy) Note: Project 30-K Ognevoy class, Ozornoy, transferred to Bulgaria in 1950 Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. T9 Wicher (PL) Armament: 4 - 5.1 in (130 mm)/50 or /55 guns (2 x 2) 2 - 3.3 in (85 mm)/55 AA guns (2 x 1) 7 - 1.5 in (37 mm) AA guns (7 x 1) 10 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 5) Note: Project 30-bis Skorry class, Skoryy, transferred to Poland in 1958 Note: Original ORP Wicher 1928 was sunk during WW2. Her sister ORP Burza survived the war and was decomissioned in 1960. Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. T10 Warszawa (PL) Armament: 4 - 5.1 in (130 mm)/58 guns (2 × 2) 16 - 1.8 in (45 mm) AA guns (4 × 4) 10 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 × 5) Note: Project 56 Kotlin class, Spravedlivyy, transferred to Poland in 1970 Note: 5.1 in (130 mm)/ 58 guns are the same guns found in Neustrashimy and Grozovoi Note: Due to their support nature, Pan Europe T8 to T10 ships will have fewer guns but have insane rate of fire. Faster than Gearing class. I know some of the suggested ships may not make it as WG will put other ships that were not available in the books or internet, but I am sure they are working on to complete the Pan-Europe tech tree. Nation Legend: PL = Poland PT = Portugal ES = Spain / Espania NL = Netherlands GR = Greece RO = Romania EE = Estonia SE = Sweden AT = Austria (Austro-Hungary) YU = Yugoslavia BG = Bulgaria
  3. I bet this topic is debatable, but I want know the true source of this made-up german cruiser, Tier IX Roon. Apparently, the russian community suggests that this ships is based on the P-class panzerschiffe(http://goo.gl/1IT7hT), while there are only few references of P-class to this ship. First of all, as I mentioned, P-Class was a "panzerschiffe" which are armed with at least 11" as main armament. Plus, the overall design of Roon is similar to light cruiser Nurnberg rather than P-class. The layout of main armaments(one turret at bow, two turrets at stern), shape of superstructure and funnel is pretty much identical to Nurnberg. And the developers put some reference of other WW2 ships, including P-class, to this fictional ship. They took the 8" as main armaments from Admiral Hipper and upgraded them from twin to triple, took the side secondary armaments from Deutschland, and took the idea from P-class that placing twin 5.9" turret right behind the front main armament. Overall, this ship is a heavy cruiser version of Nurnberg with adding references from various german cruisers. Currently, there's no clear explanation about it in the game client. If the developers made a fictional ship based on the projected ship, I suggest to put some explanations about it in the game. What's your opinion about this one? Is Roon based on P-class panzerschiffe, or other ship? If there's a official statement from Wargaming about this topic, it will be appreciated. P.S.: Tier X is obviously based on Admiral Hipper class. There's no doubt about it.
  4. Mevkins

    Improvements NEEDED to be made

    Matchmaking Matchmaking has been improved once but as new ships are added there are more variables that come into play; You need to include more information to the Matchmaking algorithm to balance the teams for a good un-wasteful battle The feel before I start the battle I have to always check at enemy and ally emblems and clans while checking their ships. Most of the time we can get a feel for whether the battle can be won or not. for the past 4 months at least we have had a lot of one sided battle where it ended with one side obliterated completely with the opposing side losing only 2-3 ships. so far the experience is that if a strong clan is flagged to be focus fired earlier in the game then that team will lose the more skillful players hence losing tends to happen more. Though this wouldn't probably happen if all the clan on one side are all Bronze while the other side is a Hurricane division and a purple clan division at the same time which greatly reduce the probability of the bronze team to even have a chance to win. Unfortunately this has happened plenty and we would say this often happens as the skilled players will also form divisions that greatly boost their ship combination; match fixing issue also sometimes happen with these clans to "Farm" winning percentage - i.e to increase winning percentage If you include the clan rating and the ranked battle ranks for each players you can build an algorithm that balances out the teams for a worthwhile battle; probably including more information such as Experience per battle will also make the balancing more accurate. there's also the problem where strong clans cannot do much if for example all the destroyers does not know what to do even if the strong clan is in perfect positions. If there is the excuse that Matchmaking will take longer to be matched if all these values are included in the battle then heres an example: you wait 10 seconds with the current matchmaking ; and you analyse the teams. it takes 1 min to realize the battle is unwinnable with the current team(including communicative ability, skill, ship types, different languages etc) and the battle ended miserably with complete obliteration in 15 minutes while the enemy loses only 2 ships. and a total of 15 minutes 10 seconds are wasted, plus all the consumables, exteriors, and losing player morale - being salty If you include more values then: matchmaking takes 2 mins; but you have 18 minutes of good balanced teams where the battles are decided by skills and luck (RNG) you earned plenty of experience albeit in the middle rank of your team but feels satisfied with the exp that you earned even when losing and is still more than the total exp you earned on previous matchmaking system. and the total time wasted is 2 minutes This event has happened many times and sometimes consecutively during certain hours such as late night or early mornings due to declining playerbase. Playerbase Many of my friends left the game due to the game being un-enjoyable anymore. This also leads to more new players in even Tier 8 battles where when you see them move, you will know instantly that they are not familiar with their ship playstyle; i.e; exposing the weaknesses of the ships most of the time during the battle. The skilled players/veterans noticed this influx of new players and are having a hard time telling the team to coordinate and support. most of the time stressing out even though a game is meant to be enjoyed. we noticed many players have lost motivations to continue playing the game and you better do something about it though there are promotions to invite new players there are insufficient training courses you give them to enable them understand how the ship is played; how to communicate to the team; how to make the best and worst decisions; how to experience the fun of battle; and how to support the team; This leads to them being unable to support the team and everyone are having bitter times blaming each other for each others mistakes resulting in toxic players. Toxic Community We pay in Asia server and since the first year there are mulltiple cultures from all over asia and oceania where people are too selfish due to their real life living conditions. an example would be: an emerald went out in front next to a destroyer and was obliterated in 1 salvo and blames the battleships for being useless; while not considering T5 battleships speed which is prob around 20-25 knots and he did not realise his mistake. then the battleship players also returned the insult on them and the toxic community is born. this happened often and in multiple languages; where people cannot understand each other and the younger players cannot understand courtesy and part of the team mindset; often having "I am always correct" selfishness attitude as they are teens (Especially millenials and social justice warriors while ignoring the facts that lead to their situations) People are easily offended nowadays which often brings downfall of great games where gigantic efforts have been put in but all these socially proud creatures form a toxic community thinking their views are the correct one - medical name: Cluster syndrome - and often complains to the developers regarding things that doesn't go to what they want. These feature need to be controlled more strictly such as bad languages (and their variants of typos); sarcasm, friendly fire, Bots, uncooperative play; etc These petty incidents will probably take a number of tickets to the admins and reducing these greatly will give the admins more time to better the game. Examples have to be made; being nice; being able to teach other how to enjoy the game; being able to help others even though his experience will be lower; being able to give good advice on decisions; building a mutual trust to cooperate; etc needs to be promoted. developing countries tend to have worse manners such as mainland china, taiwan, indonesia, malaysia etc as the individuals are also brought up using their parents' hardship for them to survive in real life; understand their culture and reach out to promote positive attitude flaming and being sarcastic, ignorant etc as a comments following this post actually confirms that the community is toxic so why don't you use that "flaming" time just try to say something nice instead hm? Toxic community in a game just makes the game un-enjoyable; just like public servers in space engineers where everyone just want to humiliate each other Instant Language Translation perhaps its just me or that people here tend not to talk to each other to coordinate positioning and movements. or language barriers; people from mainland china and taiwan thinks the international language is mandarin (and refused to speak english), people from philliphines and malaysia thinks the international language is english (and cant help but doesnt understand other mother tongue languages), so perhaps language is an issue. Maybe you can work together with a language translating company for instant machine translation? perfect translations are probably expensive and people type slangs too much so as long as the meaning is conveyed it should be enough. People just like to ping on the map here and there without saying anything and then saying languages that probably insults someone in boxes or unrecognisable characters because they didnt convey what they wanted them to do by pinging on the map boxes. again, toxic approach to teamwork; perhaps a ban on clicking map if its a spam for 7 days for that player and use words instead Promote people to communicate and if there's instant translation; it should help; but again promote good community a lobby with humanoid or avatar for each player to join in the shape of a ship that can be explored perhaps? enter a channel; then youre spawned in your avatar maybe in a Fully rendered Des Moines with interiors where there are people in rooms that you can talk with perhaps with audio or chat bubbles and explore together and have a positive conversations? recruit into clans too maybe? just saying Training Scenarios we notice people have been moving quite bad during battles and they die easily; as they expose broadsides much more and so we have been thinking to have like a campaign layout but when clicked theres a selection of tasks to do; for example Task 1 > teaches about decision making; then there will be Task 2 > mastering the responsibilities of destroyers (maybe); and Task 3 > Tanking training (In battleships, cruisers, speed tanking) then there are sub tasks that we can select (can be selected by captain of division for division play) then the division will be brought into a private map with bots where the bots will always move to a preprogrammed waypoints Decision Scenario 1: scenario example: what to do when the enemy is 5km away, an island in between; the enemy moves around the island while we are spawned heading into the island and that becomes a practice on what is the best action to take in that situation Decision Scenario 2: scenario example of when we (As a single ship ) is outnumbered; spawned in a distance of 12 kilometres with our selected ships(lets say Henri IV) and preset enemy (3 T8 cruisers) the task will require the player to survive and deal many damages while there will be allied battleships 20km away on the flank; this will teach new players to learn to kite away and flanking There can be many scenarios situations for training; and decisions made but the point is to make the new players learn to utilise what is the best course of action to solve the problem or to win these training scenarios would help the progress of the new players and the scenarios will include many rewards promoting them to do the training first before heading into Tier 8 battles and above thus reducing the frustration levels of veterans and also the new players themselves; enabling them to enjoy the game Just get the game to be better please, these are issues that are considered fatal by us since we can see players leaving the game due to these; though income-wise into the wargaming account were not sure. but we know you also need money to develop; its a business after all at least better as in we can not have 7 consecutive defeats yes? Thank you
  5. Hi Wargameing Dev team, While playing the UK destroyer line it got me thinking, the Commonwealth of Nations fought along side with the British during WW2 in both Atlantic and Pacific theater. And after looking around the internet, I found that it is possible to create a Commonwealth of Nations destroyer line like the Pan-Asia destroyer line. Commonwealth of Nations playstyle/gimmik is the "Creeping Smoke Generator" and the "Individual Torpedo Launch" (Haida and Perth), where as Pan-Asia is "Deep Water Torpedo". The playstyle almost mirrors British DD, smoke, harrass, torp, flee. Almost. But if wargameing has other ideas to make the playstyle unique, I welcome it. Here is what I have come up with when looking around the internet: CA/CL T1 Swan (AU) -> (Grimsby Class) Note: Its T1 DD Line T2 Champlain (CA) -> HMS Torbay (S Class, T Class) Close to HMS Medea T3 Vancouver (CA) -> HMS Vimy (V Class, W Class) Mirrors HMS Valkyrie T4 Waterhen (AU) -> HMS Waterhen (V Class, W Class) Mirrors HMS Wakeful T5 Saguenay (CA) -> (A Class, B Class) Mirrors HMS Acasta T6 Ottowa (CA) -> HMS Griffin (G Class, H Class) Mirrors HMS Galant T7 Napier (AU) -> (J Class, K Class, N Class) Mirrors HMS Jervis T8 Iroquoise (CA) or Ananta (AU) -> ("Tribal" Class) Mirrors HMCA Haida Note: Armed with 6 120 mm guns insted of 8 of the Cossack Note: Due to only 1 set of quad/quintuple torpedo tube, she will have high alpha damage and short reload time. T9 Anzac (AU) -> ("Battle" Class) Mirrors HMS Jutland T10 Voyager (AU) -> (Daring Class) Mirrors HMS Daring Note: HMAS Vampire already used in T3 and Voyager sounds nice compared to Vampire and Vendetta (Personal Opinion). Like the Voyager satellite. Maybe they can do a unique Camo after space battles. 🙂 T9 Anzac and T10 Voyager guns are too small to do some real damage. In my British Tech Tree Suggestion, I requested for T9 Jutland and T10 Daring be having the option to equip 133 mm (5.25 in guns), or split them as another class with 133 mm (5.25 in) guns installed as default. I would like to see T9 Anzac and T10 Voyager have the same treatment. Either have a 133 mm (5.25 in) guns be optional equipment or have a separate ship with 133 mm (5.25 in) guns as default. Possible premium ships. T6 Leander (NZ) -> HMS Leander (Leander Class) - CL Mirrors HMS Leander T6 Ontario or Quebec (CA) -> HMS Valiant (Queen Elizabeth Class) - BB Mirrors HMS Warspite Note: She was never built, but when Canada plans to build her, she would look line Queen Elizabeth in her 2nd refit in 1926 (with 1 smoke stack but retains the original bridge and secondary armaments of 6 in guns) Note: Although unconfirmed, Australia also plans to procure some Queen Elizabeth class battleships of their own. She would look line Queen Elizabeth in her 2nd refit in 1926 (with 1 smoke stack but retains the original bridge and secondary armaments of 6 in guns) Personal opinion: Due to the success of both Queen Elizabeth Class and Bayern Class, Pan America (Brazil, Argentina, Chile and possibly Peru) and Pan Europe (Spain and Netherlands) planned to procure their own battleships based on both British and German designs. It would be a common sight to see these ships in T6 plays with their own twists and gimmicks. Foot Note: CA = Canada AU = Australia NZ = New Zealand I hope that you like this suggestion and let me know if I have missed other DD that might mirror them in their respective tiers.
  6. Hi Wargameing Dev team, I would like to suggest a complete Pan-America destroyer line. However I came in 2 problems: 1. I cant find a suitable T1 for the Pan- America gunboat for the tech tree and need help on this. 2. Pan-America needs a unique gimmick or play style (Pan-Asia Deep-Water torpedo, British ambush and flee destroyer, German tanky destroyers, Russian suicide tactic, Commonwealth creep smoke). May it be armament, consumable, or their stats. However I was able to complete a destroyer line for Pan-America. I hope you like them. Here is what I have come up with when looking around the internet: Main Line DD T2 Alexandrino de Alenca / Maranhão (BR) Originally Porpoise "K-Class 1913" (UK) Armament: 3 × QF 4 in (102 mm) Mark IV guns (3 x 1) 1 × QF 2 pdr (40 mm) pom-pom Mk. II (1 x 1) 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedoes (2 x 1) T3 Almirante Villiar (PE) Originally Miklucho Maklai "Orfey Vlass" (RU) Armament: 4 × 4.0 in (102 mm)/60 Pattern 1911 guns (4 x 1) 1 × QF 2 pdr (40 mm) pom-pom Mk. II (1 x 1) 2 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) Maxim machine guns (2 x 1) 9 × 18 in (450 mm) torpedo tubes (3 x 3) Note: Miklucho Maklai (RU) -> Vambola (EE) -> Almirante Villiar (PE) See "Pan-Europe Destroyer Tech Tree Suggestion" T4 Almirante Guise (PE) Originally Avtroil "Izyaslav Class" (RU) Armament: 5 × 4.0 in (102 mm)/60 Pattern 1911 guns (5 x 1) 1 x 2.5 in (63.3 mm) Model 1916 (1 x 1) / 4 x 1.8 in (45 mm) 21-K (4 x 1) 2 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) Maxim machine guns (2 x 1) 9 × 18 in (450 mm) torpedo tubes (3 x 3) Note: Avtroil (RU) -> Lennuk (EE) -> Almirante Guise (PE) See "Pan-Europe Destroyer Tech Tree Suggestion" T5 Mendoza (AR) Based on "Scott Class" (UK) Armament: 5 × 4.7 in (120 mm) QF Mark IX guns (5 x 1) 1 × 3 in (76 mm) AA gun 2 × QF 2 pdr (40 mm) pom-pom Mk. II (2 x 1) ? Need more info 6 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 3) or Juan de Garay (AR) Originally Alcala Galiano "Churruca Class" (ES) Armament: 5 × 4.7 in (120 mm)/45 guns (5 x 1) 1 × 3 in (76 mm) AA guns (1 x 1) 6 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 3) or Antioquia (CO) Originally Douro "Douro Class" (PT) Armament: 4 - 4.7 in (120 mm)/45 guns (4 x 1) 2 - 2 pdr (40 mm) AA guns (2 x 1) 8 - 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 4) T6 Buenos Aires (AR) Based on G-Class or Gallant (UK) Armament: 4 × 4.7 in (120 mm) QF Mark IX guns (4 × 1) 8 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) Vickers machine guns (2 x 4) 8 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 × 4) T7 Amazonas (BR) Based on H-Class (UK) but armed with US 5 in (127 mm) / 38 guns Armament: 4 x 5 in (127 mm)/38 guns (4 x 1) 2 × 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (1 x 2) ? Need more info 4 × 0.79 in (20 mm) Oerlikon guns (4 x 1) 8 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 × 4) T8 Mariz e Barros (BR) Based on Mahan Class (US) but only has 2 torpedo tube insted of 3 Note: I did not use Marcilio Diaz because she may be used as a T10 ship with the same name. Armament: 5 × 5 in (127 mm)/38 guns (5 x 1) 4 × 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (2 x 2) 4 × 0.79 in (20 mm) Oerlikon guns (4 x 1) 8 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 × 4) US Ships sold to Pan America T9 Blanco Encalada (CL) Originally USS Wadleigh "Fletcher Class" (US) or Cuitláhuac (MX) Originally USS John Rogers "Fletcher Class" (US) Armament: 5 × 5 inch (127 mm)/38 guns (5 x 1) 10 × 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (5 x 2) 7–12 × 0.79 in (20 mm) Oerlikon guns (7 x 1 or 6 x 2) 10 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 × 5) T10 Ministro Portales (CL) Originally USS Charles S. Sperry "Allan M Summer Class" (US) Armament: 6 × 5 in (130 mm)/38 guns (3 x 2) [4 sec reload] 12 × 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (2 x 4 and 2 x 2) 10 × 0.79 in (20 mm) Oerlikon guns (10 x 1) 10 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 5) or Quetzalcoatl (MX) Originally USS Vogelgesang "Gearing Class" (US) Armament: 6 × 5 in (130 mm)/38 guns (3 x 2) [3 sec reload] 12 × 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors guns (2 x 4 and 2 x 2) 10 × × 0.79 in (20 mm) Oerlikon guns (10 x 1) 10 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (2 x 5) European Ships sold to Pan America T9 Garcia y Garcia (PE) Originally HNLMS Holland "Holland Class" (NL) Armament: 4 x 4.7 in (120 mm) Bofors guns (2×2) 1 x 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors AA gun (1 x 1) More can be added "Anti Submarine Mortars" Note: No Torpedo T10 Gálvez (PE) Originally HNLMS Groningen "Friesland Class" (NL) Armament: 4 x 4.7 in (120 mm) Bofors guns (2 × 2) 6 x 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors AA guns (6 × 1) "Anti Submarine Mortars" Note: No Torpedo and T10 Siete de Agosto / Veinte de Julio (CO) Modified "Halland Class" (SE) Built for Colombian Navy Armament: 6 × 4.7 in (120 mm) Bofors guns (3 × 2) 4 × 1.6 in (40 mm) Bofors AA guns (4 × 1) 4 × 21.0 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (1 × 4) "Anti-Submarine Mortars" All Armaments are only stock, WG can edit or custom them. Foot Note: (BR) = Brazil (CO) = Colombia (US) = USA (EE) = Estonia (AR) = Argentina (VE) = Venezuela (UK) = UK (ES) = Spain / Espania (CL) = Chile (EC) = Ecuador (RU) = Russia (SE) = Sweden (PE) = Peru (NL) = Netherlands (MX) = Mexico I hope that you like this suggestion. 🙂
  7. S0und_Theif

    German Tech Tree Suggestion

    Hi WG Dev team, Good day to you all, I would like to propose branch lines for the German tech tree. Please have a look and consider this suggestion. BB will have 2 branch, the battleship and battlecruiser branch CA/CL will have 3 branch, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, and pocket battleship The pocket battleship branch will merge together with the battlecruiser branch at T9. This is due to limited information on Germany's Plan Z, and since Gneisenau's main armament was upgraded to DD will have 2 branch, the 128 mm (5 in) branch and the 150 mm (5.9 in) branch. At T8, Z 23 had the option to mount wither 128 mm (5 in) or 150 mm (5.9 in), but looses the 150 mm (5.9 in) at T9, the Z46. The branch line will allow the player to play the 150 mm (5.9 in) at T9 and T10. Like the Italian T9 and T10, Germany also labeled them as cruisers "Spahkreuzer / SP" but they are comparable to France's Mogador class Large Destroyer, hence they can still be counted as destroyers "Zerstorer / Z" Today I'll start in the reverse order. I'll start from the destroyer aka "loliboats" Original DD line is untouched and will only explain the branch line or the "150 mm (5.9 in) branch" T9 SP1 / Z40 Note: Basically a Z46 armed with 6 - 150 mm (5.9 in)/ 48 guns (3 x 2). Arrangement of 1 forward, 2 aft turret. Note: Due to her size, she is also mounted with 10 - 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes (2 x 5) Note: Germany intended to hide her "cruiser" size by naming her Z40, only later to be named SP1. T10 SP? / Z ?? Note: Basically a Z52 armed with 6 - 150 mm (5.9 in)/ 48 guns (3 x 2). Arrangement of 2 forward, 1 aft turret. Note: Due to her size, she is also mounted with 10 - 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes (2 x 5) Note: Like in the previous tier, Germany intended to hide her "cruiser" size by naming her Z??, only later to be named SP?. Note: Due to her design, she can counter the French Mogador, French Le Fantastique, Italian Etna, Italian Attilio Regolo " Capitani Romani", and the Russian Khabarovsk. Next is Cruisers. Will update in the following days.
  8. S0und_Theif

    British Tech Tree Suggestion

    Hi WG Dev team, Good day to you all, I would like to propose branch lines for the British tech tree. Please have a look and consider this suggestion. BB will have 3 or 4 branch (depend if WG will implement G3 battlecruisers) Branch 1 -> Main Branch (Already in the game) Branch 2 -> Battlecruiser Branch 3 -> Forward Facing BB Branch 4 -> Forward Facing CC DD will have 2 branch. The Main line and the "Intended Armament" branch CA/CL will have 3 branch. CL branch -> Already implemented CA branch -> Questionable to implement due to her main armament is of heavy cruiser, but her armor is light cruiser. You could citadel them with no problem. Though armament can be compensated to fire every 10 sec. AP rounds only? CLAA branch -> Britain's answer to Atlanta, but less 3 turrets or 6 guns. Today I'll start in the reverse order. I'll start from the destroyer aka "loliboats" Original DD line is untouched and will only explain the branch line or the "intended armament branch" T9 Jutland (133 mm / 5.25 in ) Note: She is Jutland "Battle Class" in all aspect, except, instead of the puny 113 mm (4.5 in), she will be armed with 133 mm (5.25 in), which was the original armament for this ship. But due to shortage of the weapon, the British opt for the 113 mm (4.5 in). T10 Daring (133 mm / 5.25 in) Note: She is Daring "Daring Class" in all aspect, except, instead of the puny 113 mm (4.5 in), she will be armed with 133 mm (5.25 in), which was the original armament for this ship. But due to shortage of the weapon, the British opt for the 113 mm (4.5 in). Additional note to WG: The 113 mm (4.5 in) is now the worse performing guns in terms of penetration. Even with Inertia fuse armed, most ships cannot be penetrated. Would request to update the penetration value of the 113 mm. The current value makes the guns useless and only tickles enemy ships. Thanks Some british destoyers were given to their commonwealth allies. See Commonwealth of Nations Destroyer Tech Tree Suggestion for more details. Next is Cruisers. Will update in the following days.
  9. Last time, Fletchers, this time, Cruisers I think WG have stopped (at least temporarily) the super cruiser train? Because there is actually one pretty well-known of the so-called "super cruiser" designs left. It's the German-designed Project 1047 for the Royal Netherlands Navy. I don't think WG have run out of ships to put in the game (the Italian Navy has yet to have a line even), but yeah, standard cruisers (cruisers that aren't carrying absurdly large guns or having absurdly large hulls) are my preference right now, even when I actually own Alaska. Lützow HISTORICAL plan for 2 Hipper-class light cruisers (her and Seydlitz). Take a look at my German CL line proposal here: https://forum.worldofwarships.asia/topic/34974-german-light-cruiser-line-speculationproposal/ Simply put, a Hipper-class but with 4 of Nürnberg's guns. A so-lit T9 candidate, considering the following facts: 1. 50% more guns than Hipper (12 vs 8). 2. As much as HALF the reload (6s vs 11s). 3. Hull B Hipper having as much HP as some T10 standard cruisers: more HP than Zao and Minotaur, almost as much as Worcester. 4. Impressive gun range, either using range from Nürnberg or Hipper. With a Repair Party, she would be a new trigger-happy flamethrower that will eventually go obsolete as many other ships in the German tech tree. Maya 1943 REFITTED Takao-class with all the AA guns the IJN could afford. (you know that is a joke, right? Right?) T8 candidate, armed to shoot down planes. Having as many as 100% MORE AA guns than her sisters, Maya 1943 would be another interesting ship in this War on you-know-what. The only obvious "drawback" is that she has 1 less turret than her sister. It's the nearly useless 'C' turret that is in the forward battery but points backward. My take on the consumables: Simply no Hydro. Otherwise she's the same as Atago and ARP Takao. "Old" Buffalo TIER TEN version back in 2016, viewable through Extended tech tree mod. For those who don't know, this version of Buffalo is about the same as the current T9 Buffalo, but with the following differences as I could recall: 1. Main gun reload is 10s. 2. Carrying 2 sets of torpedo tubes on either side of the ship near the aft. Each set has 4 tubes. The torpedoes are the 9.2 km on Benson and Fletcher. To be very honest, this ship is somewhat of a missed opportunity. Playing "the odd one out" in the current US CA line you will see the funny part. The line can be Pensacola - New Orleans - Wichita - Baltimore - Des Moines. In the current line we have Buffalo preceding a ship that has very, very different armament. Would people buy this ship as a T9 premium because she's a high-tier US cruiser with torpedoes? A high-tier US cruiser with torpedoes. A high-tier US cruiser with torpedoes! OTHER CRUISERS OF NOTE (all real): Blücher SANK by a torpedo from a naval fort in Norway. T9 candidate. Same as Hipper, with the following changes: 1. Torpedo damage reduction to 25% (from 10%). 2. Torpedoes are the 10 km ones on Z-23/Z-46. 3. A standard Repair Party, like any other T9/10 cruisers. I add this ship in for my own amusement. Fargo-class SLIGHTLY improved Cleveland-class. Generally T8, possible T9 with the following gimmicks changes: 1. Infinite DAAF (like Flint). 2. Consumable Slot 5: US DD Smoke or Salem's Repair Party. Ceylon-group, Crown Colony-class THREE-TURRETTED Fiji. Even with one turret less, easily be T7 if HE and AP shells are cruiser's standard. Same specifications and consumables as Fiji. Also, click >>>HERE<<< to see another class of (more or less) similar design. Tiger-class 1959 THE LAST all-gun cruiser of the Royal Navy. Imagine a Minotaur with 2 turrets and much less HP (about the same as Edinburgh and Belfast). Yeah. That's it. Doesn't even have torpedoes. Pretty good T7 with that rate of fire. LUL. Dido-class DISCOUNT Atlantas of the Royal Navy. These ships use secondary guns from BBs as their primary armament. The ones from KGV and Vanguard. Dido-group carries 5 twin turrets, Bellona-group carries 4. Either way, these ships aren't reaching T7 without (at least) a rate of fire buff. 6.7s reload with less guns is no way comparable to Atlanta/Flint, and Atlanta has more HP! I like the names of the ships in this class though. Tone-class ALL-GUN forward (?) aviation cruiser. Still stuck in Development Davy Jones' locker I guess. Oregon City-class SLIGHTLY improved Baltimore-class. What this class is to Baltimore-class is the same as what Fargo-class is to the Clevelands. See also: Northampton-class which stands betwixt Portland-class (Indianapolis) and New Orleans-class. Juneau-class SLIGHTLY different Atlanta-class. You could always call this class a subclass of Atlanta-class. Or of Oakland-class, which itself is a subclass of Atlanta-class. Meta. Atlanta: 8x2 turrets, 2x4 torp tubes. Oakland: 6x2 turrets, 2x4 torp tubes. Juneau: 6x2 turrets. Other cruisers I MUST mention: - Japanese Ooyodo (T5). - Premium sister of Mogami 155 please... - French Duquesne and Suffren-classes (T6). - Italian Bolzano (T7) as premium, Trento-class can be in the tech tree. - Many Commonwealth, Pan-American, Pan-Asian and Pan-European cruisers with unique designs I am not familiar with to talk about.
  10. EmperorThor

    CV in matchmaking

    Can we not just get an option when going into match making to que up with or without CV's? Like they dont include them in clan battles so we not have an option to do random battles without carriers? There is just too much plane spam going on now. Playing randoms between t7 and t10 and you can get stuck with up to 3 CV's all just torp spamming the shit out of everyone and its just not enjoyable.
  11. I just had a terrible game of which my div that consisted of two tier 6 DD were matched against two tier 7 DD. This is a broken matchmaking. Dev, please fix this. 2 T6 DD vs 2 T7 DD. wtf is this bullshit.wowsreplay
  12. For tiering up and you just want to keep 1 tier 1 ship, which cruiser would you keep?
  13. Hi WG Dev team, Good day to you all, I would like to propose the Italian tech tree. Although my research is incomplete, I would like to ask for everyone's help in filling in the missing ships. WG team also can have input if they have books or historic plans of the Italian Navy. Missing links: T3 BB T10 BB (Although the T10 BB has names, their configuration is very much theoretical. Usually, what France build, Italy answers and vice versa. Pretty much like what UK builds, Germany answers and vice versa.) T4 CL/CA T8 - T10 CA (Though a pretty much possible T8 and T9 CA will have 10 - 203 mm guns in {3 x 2} and {2 x 2} config, while T10 CA will either have 12 - 203 mm guns or 9 to 10 larger than 203 mm guns if any data exists) I kinda understand why WG have difficulty in implementing the Italian tech tree. I'm not sure but they may be facing the same challenges on getting info in Italian ships. Especially on T8 to T10. WG wants it to be as historically accurate as possible. Which I really appreciate and thank them for their hard work. Although my suggestion may not be read or noticed, I hope this suggestion may help them a bit on the research. Please have a look and consider this suggestion. The Italians have main armaments that has fast velocity and heavy shells. Fast velocity shells = overpens in close range??? Heavy shells = limited range??? Italian consumable gimmick = ? (I'm sure WG is working on this, but anyone can suggest a gimmick. Maybe from the space battle or haloween?) BB main line -> This branch is the main battleship line plays almost like US and Russian BB but has that Italian feel / gimmick BB branch line ->This branch line is some what of an odd ball. It looks, fells, and smells like a Battlecruiser but it doesn't. Small decrease in gun calibre/caliber, and small increase in speed while armor stays the same, while playing as an Italian, these ships feels like you have played them before in France, Germany, USA, UK, and Soviet Tech tree. DD line -> Italian DD line. Destroyer Note: Falco shares her class with Romania. Look into Romanian Destroyer Marasti Class and Regele Ferdinand Class Quick detail 1939 config -> 5 x 1 120 mm, 1941 config -> 2 x 2 120 mm Destroyer Note: Like WOT, the P43 was a heavy tank on paper but it is really a medium tank in real life practice and in the WOT game. Same thing will apply to T9 Etna and T10 Attilio Regolo "Capitani Romani Class". Destroyer Note: According to Wikipedia, T9 Etna and T10 Attilio Regolo "Capitani Romani Class" are consdered as crisers. But their design is more of a "Flotilla Leader", hence a "Large Destroyer" like France's Mogador of T10 and Russia's Khabarovsk of T10 are counter these ships. CL line -> Light cruiser line (T4 no Data) CA line -> Heavy cruiser line (T8-T10 no Data) Cruiser note: Since there is no known light cruiser design after Duca degli Abruzzi / Giuseppe Garibaldi, it is uncertain if there will be a T8 light cruiser line. If -> Theoretical T8 light cruiser exist with 12 guns Light cruiser line stops at T8 and the next re searchable tier will be T8 heavy cruiser, thus ending the light cruiser tech tree. Else If -> Theoretical T9 light cruiser design possible Light cruiser line continues till T10. Else -> Light cruiser line stops at T7 and the next re searchable tier will be T8 heavy cruiser, thus ending the light cruiser tech tree. Cruiser note: French and Italian tech tree will have this similarities. What France makes, Italy responds and vise versa. Battleship T3 ???? Armament: ?? x 305 mm (12 in) guns ?? x 120 mm (4.7 in) guns Note: I do not have any idea on this and there are no preliminary designs I can find. Personal Opinion: I can only think of 3 designs for this tier (they are not historical and it is only my personal idea or opinion): Design 1: 12 x 305 mm (12 in) guns (6 x 2) - Regina Elena class design. Main armament and secondary armament is armed with dual 305 mm guns (1 Bow, 1 Aft, 2 Port, 2 Starbord). She can fire only 4 turrets per broadside. She will feel like Turenne (French T3 BB) Design 2: 8 x 305 mm (12 in) guns (4 x 2) - Dante Alighieri design but guns are in dual mount in four turrets instead of triple mount. This will make Dante Alighieri feel skinnier due to less number of guns, but give you an idea how Dante Alighieri should be played. Design 3: 9 x 305 mm (12 in) guns (3 x 3) - Dante Alighieri design but guns are in triple mount but in three turrets instead of four. This will make Dante Alighieri feel short and plays like Normandie (French T6 BB). T4 Dante Alighieri Armament: 12 x 305 mm (12 in) guns (4 x 3) 20 x 120 mm (4.7 in) guns (12 x 1 and 4 x 2) 14 × 76.2 mm (3 in) guns (14 x 1) Note: If you are familiar with Soviet BB Gangut or Okt. Revolutsiya, she will play the same as those Soviet BB. T5 Leonardo da Vinci Armament (As built): 13 x 305 mm (12 in) guns (3 x 3 and 2 x 2) 18 × 120 mm (4.7 in) guns (18 x 1) 14 × 76.2 mm (3 in) guns (14 x 1) Armament (Modernized) (Optional) (Hull C): 10 x 320 mm (12.6 in) guns (3 x 2 and 2 x 2) 12 × 120 mm (4.7 in) (6 x 2) 8 × 100 mm (3.9 in)/47 AA guns (4 x 2) Note: She is the 3rd sister of Conte di Cavour and Giulio Cesare. Note: Leonardo da Vinci was sunk while her 2 other sister survived WW1 and got modenized. Option: Hull C, should Leonardo da Vinci survived WW1, she whould get the same upgrade as Conte di Cavour and Giulio Cesare or better. T6 Francesco Caracciolo Armament: 8 × 381 mm (15 in)/ 40 guns (4 x 2) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) guns (12 x 1) 12 × 102 mm (4 in) guns (6 x 2) Note: She is direct counter to QE2 and Bayern Main Branch T7 Michaelangelo or Raffaello Armament: 8 × 381 mm (15 in) /40 or 50 guns (4 x 2) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) /55 guns (4 x 3) 12 × 90 mm (3.5 in) /50 AA guns (12 x 1) 20 × 37 mm (1.5 in) /54 AA guns (10 x 2) 32 × 20 mm (0.79) Breda MG (16 x 2) Note: Preliminary design for Vittorio Veneto class. 8 guns in 4 turrets T8 Vittorio Veneto Armament: 9 × 381 mm (15 in) /50 guns (3 x 3) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) /55 guns (4 x 3) 12 × 90 mm (3.5 in) /50 AA guns (12 x 1) 20 × 37 mm (1.5 in) /54 AA guns (10 x 2) 32 × 20 mm (0.79) Breda MG (16 x 2) Note: Italy's answer to Richelieu Class. Plays like N. Carolina and Monarch. Note: Battle of Vittorio Veneto (WW1) T9 Caporetto (UP.41) Armament: 9 × 406 mm (16 in) guns (3 x 3) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) guns (4 x 3 or 6 x 2) 12 × 90 mm (3.5 in) AA guns (6 x 2) 20 × 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns (10 x 2) Note: UP.41 design. Looks, fells, and smells almost like Sovetsky Soyuz class (Russian T9 BB) Note: Battle of Caporetto (WW1) T10 Repubblica Armament (Design 1 - 4 Turret): 12 × 406 mm (16 in) guns (4 x 3) or 8 x ???mm guns (4 x 2) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) guns (4 x 3 or 6 x 2) ?? × 90 mm (3.5 in) AA guns ?? × 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns Armament (Design 2 - 4 Turret) Andrea Doria type: 10 × 406 mm (16 in) guns (2 x 3 and 2 x 2) or 8 x ???mm guns (4 x 2) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) guns (4 x 3 or 6 x 2) ?? × 90 mm (3.5 in) AA guns ?? × 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns Armament (Design 3 - 3 Turret): 9 x ???mm guns (3 x 3) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) guns (4 x 3 or 6 x 2) ?? × 90 mm (3.5 in) AA guns ?? × 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns Note: Direct counter to French T10 Republique / Libertie Note: It is unknown if Italy has made plans for a larger calibre/caliber guns no larger than 457 mm (18 in) in this . The largest guns goes to Japan's monstrosity Yamato Note: Since there is no concrete design after and beyond UP.41, I just speculate that Italy may have thought of a design beyond UP.41 but did not came to light as they fell first after WW2 and faced financial hardship. Personal Opinion: I can only think of 3 designs for this tier (they are not historical and it is only my personal idea or opinion): Design 1: She could have 4 turret slots, but armed with 406 mm in 4 triple mount or ???mm in 4 double mount Design 2: She could have 4 turret slots, but armed with 406 mm in 2 triple mount and in 2 double or ???mm in 4 double mount Design 3: She could have 3 turret slots, but armed with ??? mm in 3 triple mount Side SAP Branch (Update: Possible SAP line. Dangerous to CL and CA.) T6 Conte Di Cavour Armament (As built): 13 x 305 mm (12 in) guns (3 x 3 and 2 x 2) 18 × 120 mm (4.7 in) guns (18 x 1) 14 × 76.2 mm (3 in) guns (14 x 1) Armament (Modernized) (Optional) (Hull C): 10 x 320 mm (12.6 in) guns (3 x 2 and 2 x 2) 12 × 120 mm (4.7 in) (6 x 2) 8 × 100 mm (3.9 in)/47 AA guns (4 x 2) Note: Leonardo Da Vinci in SAP mode. T7 Andrea Doria or Caio Duilio Armament (Modernized 1937): 10 x 320 mm (12.6 in) guns (3 x 2 and 2 x 2) 12 × 135 mm (5.3 in) guns (4 x 3) 10 × 90 mm (3.5 in) AA guns (10 x 1) 16 x 37 mm (1.5 in) Breda AA guns (8 x 2) 16 x 20 mm (0.79 in) Breda AA guns (8 x 2) Note: I am very sure one of them will be a premium like Dunkerque and Strasbourg or Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Note: She will be familiar as plays like Lyon and KGV. Small calibre/caliber for her tier but has many guns. T8 Filippo Lippi Armament: 6 × 381 mm (15 in) /40 or 50 guns (3 x 2) or 9 x 343 mm (13.5 in)/ 50 guns (3 x 3) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) /55 guns (4 x 3) 10 × 90 mm (3.5 in) /50 AA guns (10 x 1) 20 × 37 mm (1.5 in) /54 AA guns (10 x 2) 32 × 20 mm (0.79) Breda MG (16 x 2) Note: Another preliminary design for Vittorio Veneto. Note: She will be familiar as plays like Gneisenau. (Which will be moved to T8 because of the battle cruiser suggestion I will make in the future) Side Note: Yes, there is really an Italian painter called Filippo LippiIts and not to be confused with the band "Fra Lippo Lippi" which is Norwegian. Stitches and Burns. T9 Isonzo (UP.41) Armament: 9 × 381 mm (15 in) guns (3 x 3) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) guns (4 x 3 or 6 x 2) 12 × 90 mm (3.5 in) AA guns (6 x 2) 20 × 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns (10 x 2) Note: UP.41 design. Looks, fells, and smells almost like Sovetsky Soyuz class (Russian T9 BB) but armed with 381 mm Note: Battle of Isonzo (WW1) Note: She will be familiar as plays like Iowa or Sovetsky Soyuz with a twist. T10 Impero Armament (Design 1 - 4 Turret): 12 × 381 mm (15 in) guns (4 x 3) or 8 x ???mm guns (4 x 2) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) guns (4 x 3 or 6 x 2) ?? × 90 mm (3.5 in) AA guns ?? × 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns Armament (Design 2 - 4 Turret) Andrea Doria type: 10 × 381 mm (15 in) guns (2 x 3 and 2 x 2) or 8 x 406 mm guns (4 x 2) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) guns (4 x 3 or 6 x 2) ?? × 90 mm (3.5 in) AA guns ?? × 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns Armament (Design 3 - 3 Turret): 9 x 406 mm guns (3 x 3) 12 × 152 mm (6 in) guns (4 x 3 or 6 x 2) ?? × 90 mm (3.5 in) AA guns ?? × 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns Note: She will be familiar as plays like Montana, Conqueror or Iowa , Lion with a twist. Note: It is unknown if Italy has made plans for a larger calibre/caliber guns no larger than 431 mm (17 in) in this branch. The largest guns goes to Japan's monstrosity Yamato Note: Since there is no concrete design after and beyond UP.41, I just speculate that Italy may have thought of a design beyond UP.41 but did not came to light as they fell first after WW2 and faced financial hardship. Personal Opinion: I can only think of 3 designs for this tier (they are not historical and it is only my personal idea or opinion): Design 1: She could have 4 turret slots, but armed with 381 mm in 4 triple mount or ???mm in 4 double mount Design 2: She could have 4 turret slots, but armed with 381 mm in 2 triple mount and in 2 double or ???mm in 4 double mount Design 3: She could have 3 turret slots, but armed with ??? mm in 3 triple mount Next is Cruisers Full details in the following days.
  14. S0und_Theif

    French Tech Tree Suggestion

    Hi WG Dev team, Good day to you all, I would like to propose branch lines for the French tech tree. Please have a look and consider this suggestion. The Frenchy way Consumables: artillery WD40, and NOS BB main line -> The french way, all guns forward (The french makes things different. Think different) BB branch line -> The traditional way with maximum alpha and a bit of french touch (Quad turret) BB Note: Gascogne is not the premium Gascogne, but rather her armament configuration of 1 front 1 rear turret. I currently do not have a name for her. DD torpedo boat line -> Your usual torpedo loli-boats with 550 mm french baguette. Usually armed with 130 mm. Smaller than her other branch. Small size means better concealment compared to her "large" branch. DD "large" boat line -> A implied they are "large" compared to other loli-boats. Usually armed with 139 mm and really fast for her size. (If you have Aigle, she is good practice boat for this line) Due to large size, their concealment suffer, but with her 139 mm guns will make you think twice. (Larger than Lada's (Russian) 130mm but smaller than BMW's (German) 150mm) CL line -> French light cruiser line, artillery WD40 and NOS at T6. CA line -> Early access to CA like Japan, but no artillery WD40 and no NOS Cruiser note: Since there is no known light cruiser design after De Grasse / Chateurenault, it is uncertain if there will be a T8 light cruiser line. If -> Theoretical T8 light cruiser exist with 12 guns Light cruiser line stops at T8 and the next re searchable tier will be Charles Martel, T8 heavy cruiser, thus ending the light cruiser tech tree. Else If -> Theoretical T9 light cruiser design possible Light cruiser line continues till T10. Else -> Light cruiser line stops at T7 and the next re searchable tier will be Charles Martel, T8 heavy cruiser, thus ending the light cruiser tech tree. Cruiser note: French and Italian tech tree will have this similarities. What France makes, Italy responds and vise versa. Battleship T3 Turenne No change T4 Courbet No change T5 Bretagne No change T6 Normandie No change Forward Guns Branch (The French way) T6 Preliminary Dunkerque Armament: 8 × 305 mm (12 in)/50 (?) guns (2 x 4) ?? × 130 mm(5.1 in)/45 guns (? x 4 and ? x 2) ?? × 37 mm (1.5 in)/50 guns (? x 2) ?? × 13.2 mm (0.52 in)/76 Hotchkiss MG (? x 1 and ? x 2) Note: I am a bit skeptical at 305 mm being on T6. But the Lyon with 340 mm is on T7 so..... T7 Strasbourg Armament: 8 × 330 mm (13 in)/50 guns (2 x 4) 16 × 130 mm(5.1 in)/45 guns (3 x 4 and 2 x 2) 8 × 37 mm (1.5 in)/50 guns (4 x 2) 8 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in)/76 Hotchkiss MG (8 x 1) Armour: Belt: Dunkerque: 225 mm Strasbourg: 283 mm Deck: Dunkerque: 115 – 125 mm Strasbourg: 127 – 137 mm Turrets: Dunkerque: 150 – 330 mm Strasbourg: 160 – 360 mm Conning tower: 270 mm Note: Armour shows the difference between Dunkerque and Strasbourg. While both ships will have 26s reload time, only Dunkerque will get the WD40 Armament reload booster, while Strasbourg dose not. Question: Should Dunkerque move up to T7 along with her sister Strasbourg or stay at T6? T8 Richelieu Armament: 8 × 380 mm (15 in)/45 guns (2 x 4) 9× 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3) Note: No change. Side Note: Richelieu's Hull A is similar to Clemenceau, the 3rd sister of the Richelieu class, where she recieves 2 extra secondary turrets in her sides insted of usual AA armament of 37mm and 13.2mm were placed. T9 Flandre (Project 4 Richelieu Class) Armament: 9 - 12 × 380 mm (15 in)/45 guns (3 x 3 or 3 x 4) 9 × 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3) 24 × 100 mm (3.9 in)/45 guns (12 x 2) Note: French Nelson. Note: Turret C is facing forward. T10 Liberte Armament: 8 x 431 mm (17 in)/50 guns (2 x 4) 16 x 127 mm (5 in)/54 guns (8 x 2) 9 x 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3) Note: Republique has 1 forward and 1 rear turret, Liberte has both turret in front and none in the rear. Traditional Style Branch T7 Lyon Armament: 16 x 340 mm (13.4 in)/45 guns (4 x 4) 24 × 130 mm(5.1 in)/45 guns (4 x 4 and 4 x 2) 40 × 37 mm (1.5 in)/50 guns (20 x 2) 24 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in)/76 Hotchkiss MG (12 x 2) Note: No change. Side Note: there were 2 other designs for Lyon and they can be sold as premium. Other Design 1 (Turret Configuration): There was a competing design for Lyon with 2 turrets forward (A, B)and 2 turrets rear (X, Y) (The center turret (C) was moved forward). This means she can fire 8 guns insted of only 4. (source: Journal of United States Artillery, example Tourville) Other Design 2 (Armament Size): there were plans to mount Lyon with 8 380 mm guns, but later abandoned due to time constraints. Personal Opinion: Lyon seems to have a mistake in her design in an engineering stand point. Her funnel is in the front near the bridge tower. Does this mean either the engine is between Turret A and Turret C and have extra long gears to the propeller. Or the engine is in the correct position (which is near in the middle) and have created a long shaft funnel to go forward. Which may heat up the magazine room in Turret C and cause catastrophic explosion. I know im being nit picky on this but it just looks wrong. We can open a discussion this in another topic in the forum. T8 "Gascogne" type Armament: 8 × 380 mm (15 in)/45 guns (2 x 4) 9× 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3) Note: She is Gascogne in all manner and configuration but she is not Gascogne. Gascogne is a premium and will find another name for her, but the configuration of the armament replicates Gascogne. T9 Alsace (N3) Armament: 12 × 380 mm (15 in)/45 guns (3 x 4) 9 × 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3) 24 × 100 mm (3.9 in)/45 guns (12 x 2) Note: No change. Note: The only odd one in the branch as she has rear turret. T0 Republique Armament: 8 x 431 mm (17 in)/50 guns (2 x 4) 16 x 127 mm (5 in)/54 guns (8 x 2) 9 x 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3) Note: No change. Next is Cruisers Full details in the following days.
  15. Hi Waregameing Dev Team, Would like to suggest to add Swedish Cruiser Gotland (with 6 guns, 4 turrets) at T5 or T6 and Tre Kronor and/or Gota Lejon at T6 or T7. Like Polish Destroyer Blyskawica, they may be premeiums and may or may not have unique playstyle. And fly the Swedish flag. Side Note: Gota Lejon was sold to Chile as Almirante Latorre, possible for future Pan-American cruiser premium. I noticed that these cruisers may resemble German T5 Konigsberg or T6 Nurnberg style. Maybe the game play may not be far from that but should be different enough to be unique.
  16. mingkimingki

    matchmaking algorithm

    how exactly is the game's matchmaking algorithm system? what aspects determine the trigger other than tier?
  17. I am facing poverty in WOWs and to get NC is crazy expensive include all modules upgrade it cost at least 18Mil. So i have few Dollars to spend on premium ships, preferred tier 6/7 (the most fun tier ever). I read certain review and Duca d'Aosta seems to be the best premium cruiser to tier 6. Is there any better premium ships that prints money faster?
  18. I know I'm still far from getting the Salem, (cuz I only have 50k coal atm) but I want to plan ahead whether if I should get the Salem or Musashi. What I want to know is, how does it compare to it's counterpart, the Des Moines, and does it compete well against other tierX ships? Also, how good is it with credit farming compared to other high tier premiums like Missouri, Musashi, and Kronshtadt? For playstyle, I think I know how to use US Cruisers, I already have Baltimore and Cleveland, and almost ready to get the Buffalo.
  19. coldsteelfury

    Soviet Cruiser T9 Kronshtadt

    I just played a game with my T8 T7 Myoko and encountered the premium Soviet T9 cruiser Kronshtadt. I can't believe what just happened. I shot this ship multiple times broadside with 203mm AP shells. Distances varied from 14km right down to 10km. My shells either shattered or ricocheted. A small percentage of shells did normal penetration damage. No citadels. The enemy Kronshtadt made zero attempt to angle itself and happily shredded my full health highly angled Myoko with impunity, it's AP shells ripping right through my Myoko (even when angled at less than 30 degrees). IJN CA's are meant to have the biggest guns in the game in so far as cruisers are concerned. It is utterly ridiculous that a Myoko can rain AP hell upon a lazy broadside cruiser several times (and that's the keyword I'd like to emphasise: cruiser) and do absolutely bugger all damage. Most shells couldn't even do normal pen damage, the armor on a perfect broadside was so thick that the 203mm AP mostly shattered or bounced. Crazy! If WG want the Kronshtadt to be impervious to AP fire from other cruisers, then WG should classify Kronshtadt as a battleship (just like other battlecruisers like in the IJN BB tech tree). What an absolute cheat ship. Being outplayed is one thing, but false representations is another. Having a so-called cruiser show perfect broadside at close/medium range and multiple times shrug off virtually all damage from heavy 203mm AP cruiser guns is beyond belief. Now I have to memorise that Kronshtadt is not a cruiser but a battleship in disguise that cannot be citadelled when broadside. It's ridiculous. We're not talking T10 Yamato here, we're talking about an alleged cruiser in the same tier bracket as my Myoko. The German Graf Spee is a "pocket battleship" cruiser which has a half cruiser and half battleship personality, but it will take citadel damage if the captain presents a broadside. But I guess because the Graf Spee is German that's the difference. WG loves to create these Soviet vessels with magical powers. We get it guys. You're patriotic. But calling the Kronshtadt a cruiser is a sick joke. Honestly I'd love to have a cruiser which can rip through heavily angled targets with its guns and cannot be penetrated broadside by other cruisers no matter how stupid I am. It must take a "tremendous" amount of skill to pilot a cruiser with magical powers like that. Talk about a troll ship. /rant
  20. Hello I am back home for vacations and am grinding my way through the american cruiser line. Thing is most of my time spent is joining a game, getting blown up, and going back to my DDs for solace. I have no doubt the fault lies in the way i play them but i cant figure it out. Till omaha i could dodge shots with WASDing(the occasional AP hit didnt do much). Cleveland was a good bonfire igniter but pensacola has really left me reeling.... i try to maneuver and stuff but even if a single shot hits me, it removes a MAJOR chunk off my HP. Whenever a BB spots me , it always switches targets to aim on me. i have tried hiding and using islands but that way I contribute nothing to the team . Any advice would be nice. PS I rarely visit the forums so if this is the wrong place to post this ... I apologize in advance and request that this be moved at the correct spot.
  21. <its a long post> Recently i experienced consecutive lose due to the terrible destroyer players. I do respect privacy. so I'll not pin-pointing out the certain RED-rated people Yah of coarse some of y wanna play destroyers though you're suck at it. and others just blame war gaming for making destroyers having huge impact on Victories or loses. Personally i don't want bad players to play DD which leads to not only him/her, BUT leading entire team to HELL. Cruisers and Battleship with bad players doesn't matter. Cause they don't really play huge roles as the DD. Anyway, these are not the ones i wanted to say its MATCHMAKING I heard that matchmaking is based on player's skill and other contributing factors but here's the example our team has 2 Unicom battleships and 2 DD potatoes enemy team has 2 rated excellent DD and 2 rated GOOD battleships guess who will win? its the enemy team. and the reason is quite simple. Game was designed for CV => DD > BB > CA/CL =>DD No matter you're Super Unicom or what its almost impossible to win DD with BB. The team with Terrible DD players are getting unbelievable disadvantage compared to team with decent DD players. These solutions can be the key (EX) we have 2 DDs one of them is terrible player one of them is good and decent player (Balanced) We DO need Good and balanced match making by the "Subcategories" TOO others ships? doesn't matter DDs? YES IT DOES MATTER. Cause they play vital role on winning the Game hopefully war gaming solve these originated problem since i lov playing WOWS thanks
  22. One of the many great things about WoWS is you are free to set your own goals. Fitting then that my sweetest "victory" of all was completing a task which was entirely of my own design: I wanted to claw back 14 losses accumulated in my Furutaka and a 42% WR to draw an even 50%. Make no mistake, that 42% was earned. No MM unfairness, I really was that bad. So this wasn't just about grinding out the wins, it was about getting good enough to win at all. And 14 losses is a lot to ground to make up. Consider if you play at a win rate of 52%, it would take 350 games to accumulate 14 net wins. I managed to do it in about 150 games (I was 42% after I had about 160 Furutaka games), and now sit on a clean 50%+ WR in all my IJN cruisers (see below). Consider also that Furutaka only has a 49% WR ship average. In celebration, indulge me while tell you how I did it and gush about why Furutaka C is my favorite ship in the game. ***** (Since the A and B hulls blow by in less than 20 games, I'll focus on the C hull exclusively. It's for all intents an purpose a different ship.) I struggled mightily with Furutaka for the longest time. The Eureka moment came 150 games in, when I replaced Main Battery Mod 2 with Aiming Systems Mod 1 and starting trying to hit citadels (or other specific parts of a ship) rather than just trying to hit the ship period. The next advance was understanding the guns(tm) and realizing how much more powerful they can be at 8 km compared to 12 km. The final pieces of the Furutaka "git gud" equation is learning to kite like a boss(tm), together with the sister skill, timing the turn(tm). Secondary but still important addons to the Furutaka captain portfolio include the ever popular shoot over islands(tm) and how to avoid knife fights(tm). Furutaka is a beautiful ship. Not pretty, but well-balanced and purposeful. A Furutaka is well-suited to perform just about any in-game support role you can name: destroyer hunter, cruiser killer, battleship harasser, guard, escort, and scout duties, even capping is possible in a pinch. She has powerful, long range torps, high caliber guns, good AP and HE shells, reasonable armor, good firing angles, decent speed, and reasonable maneuverability. The only real limitations that must be accepted and worked around is the mediocre AA, the slow turret traverse, and the long reload times on both guns and torps. It might be said that the 13.9 km gun range is a limitation, but I would disagree. Furutaka is not meant to hang back and snipe like Konigsberg. The engagement distance you should be looking at is 6-8 km for DD, 8-10 km for CA, and up around the detection circle (~12 km base) for BBs. Furutaka is one of the few T5 ships I can take out in T5-7 MM and not feel disadvantaged in. The trick is to work closely with friendly ships and always keep the exits open. ..... ps. screenshot is of my 322nd furutaka game, the one I crossed over to 50% with. Not my best, but definitely good enough to commemorate the occasion with.
  23. Captain_screw

    NEW US Cruiser line Q/A

    Started playing WOWS like 6 or 7 months ago. And Don't know what happens when there is a line split. So, I have a Pensacola and a Cleveland. My question regarding this is what will I have after the line split update? Please keep it as simple as possible. I really don't understand the concept of line split. Still learning things.
  24. I am not the world's best BB driver, especially at higher tiers, but I've still managed to be in the top 3 on my team in three of my 7 Scharnhorst games, with 50-70k dmg done in those and not pulled a single win. What more does it take?
  25. Recently, there are alot more radar ships around, too many of them in fact. Forget about the T8 mm, it's still broken but I know you guys will never fix it. Look at the screenshot, the enemy has 6 radar ships! Yes the minotaur is also running radar. I always see THREE Missouri in a team. This did not just happen in one game, pretty much these few days this has been a real problem. We don't mind having to wait a little longer for the mm to balance the shit out. Please address this issue ASAP, especially since you want to remove the Missouri, lots of players are rushing to get that [content removed]. Inappropriate/derogatory. Post edited, user sanctioned. ~amade
×