Cleveland Business to Business Matchmaker | COSE

  • Cleveland Business to Business Matchmaker | COSE
  • Cleveland Matchmaking - Personal Matchmaker for Singles in
  • Lunch Date: Unique Matchmaking Services: Serving Cleveland
  • Cleveland Matchmaking - Get Started! - Personal Matchmaker
  • The #1 Matchmaking and Dating Service: It’s Just Lunch
[OC] Dr. Zan's Cure for What Ails Ya: the flailing Philadelphia 76ers

The NBA is about a third of the way through the long race of the regular season. Some teams have galloped out to great starts -- some teams have stumbled out of the gates -- and some teams look like a horse who broke his leg and needs to get sent to the glue factory.
Our intention with this new series to focus on some of those ailing squads and offer some possible remedies for their long-term health. We already took a look at one team in dire need of help with the New York Knicks, and now we're going to examine a team that's not living up to their potential yet.
Misdiagnosis: Rotten Core
To be clear, the Philadelphia 76ers are a good basketball team. They're coming off two 50-win seasons, and are on pace for yet another 50-win season this year (currently at 23-14.)
However, this isn't a franchise or fan base that will be content with 50-win seasons forever. The end goal of this "Process" was always a championship ring, or at the very least a Finals appearance or two. And at the moment, that trip to the Finals is no guarantee. The Sixers have lost 4 in a row and have stumbled to the 6th seed. There's a tight pack in that 2-6 range, but all five of those teams appear to be a notch below the Milwaukee Bucks.
More and more, we're hearing grumblings about the roster construction. About the fit of Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons as the core duo. Does this team need to -- gasp -- blow it up???
Personally, I'm not as much of a pyromaniac as others who love to see that dynamite and those smoldering flames. Consider me a pacifist. Someone who favors tweaks and adjustments rather than starting from scratch.
Because, I would submit, this foundation is NOT fundamentally flawed. Sure, Ben Simmons is not the type of player who can fit seamlessly on any roster (in the same way a shooting wing like a Kevin Durant or Paul George might.) Sure, there's some clunkiness to the halfcourt offense with both stars in the lineup. But at the end of the day, there are more positives than negatives here. They're both young. They both have great size for their position. They both play tough D. Together, that gives the Sixers an edge and identity over most teams.
However, to take that next step from good to great, the team is going to have to take a hard look in the mirror. When I look at this team myself, here are the flaws and possible fixes that I see.
Actual Diagnosis: Rotten Rotation
The pairing between Ben Simmons and Joel Embiid can work. However, because they're such unique and specific talents, it becomes paramount that the rest of the roster fit together like a glove around them. That's a challenge for Elton Brand and any GM. In theory, it's easy to say -- "add a bunch of 3+D wings!" -- then it is to actually find those wings.
This summer, the Philadelphia 76ers lost forward Jimmy Butler to free agency, but replaced him with another star: Al Horford. Although Horford is now 33, he's still a very good addition to any roster. He's a high-IQ player who's still a good defender, a good ball mover (3.7 assists per game this season), and a capable stretch big.
However, you can quibble about the "fit" on this specific Sixers team. Horford fancies himself a power forward (which was possibly part of the draw to Philly), but sliding over to that spot negates some of his advantages. For a center, he's a good shooter. For a power forward? He's about average. He's been below average this year, hitting just 33.8% of his threes and netting a true shooting of only 52.2%.
Horford's shooting will likely bounce back to some degree this season, but in the long term, he's going to be in decline. And that's a big concern. Horford is good at 33 years old, but will he still be good at 34? At 35? Brand and the Sixers took a sizable gamble on him, locking him in for a 4-year deal at near $25M a season. It's looking more and more likely that contract will get ugly in the back half of its life.
In the meantime, and in the future, the Sixers should think about possibly staggering Horford and Embiid as much as possible. Their offense isn't on track right now, grading as only the 16th best in the NBA according to basketball reference. Perhaps sliding Horford to a 6th man role (and still playing him 30 minutes a night) would work, presuming you can slot in a good wing in the starting lineup in his place.
And that brings us to the second (and bigger) problem on the team. There simply aren't a lot of options. The top 5 is strong, but the bench is woefully thin. Furkan Korkmaz is OK, but nothing special. Mattise Thybulle is promising, but still a rookie. Second-year players like Zhaire Smith, Shake Milton, and Jonah Bolden haven't broken out yet. Veterans Mike Scott and James Ennis are aging more like Chris Tucker than P.J. Tucker.
Not only does the limited options hurt the Sixers in terms of their offensive firepower, but it hurts in terms of their flexibility as well. Coach Brett Brown can't tinker with too many lineups or strategies because he's got limited cards in his hand. If we can give him some more weapons, then perhaps this team can be more dangerous in turn.
Prescription: A new 6th man
The Philadelphia 76ers will make the playoffs. And as long as Joel Embiid is 100% healthy, then it won't matter much who their 9th or 10th man will be. Rotations will shrink, and their lack of depth will become less of an issue than usual. They'll only need a strong 8 man rotation to make some real noise out East.
The Sixers aren't too far away from that. As mentioned, Furkan Korkmaz is playable. Backup PG Trey Burke is decent, and Matisse Thybulle has some real upside as a 3+D player. But still, you'd like to see an upgrade here. You'd like a real difference maker who can either anchor the second unit as a scorer, or a plug-in 5th pseudo-starter who would allow them to stagger their current stars more often (whether that results in Al Horford coming off the bench or not.)
The hard part of this prescription is that the Sixers don't have many means to purchase it. Their salary cap is bloated, slotted to pay out over $130M over the next few years. Their cupboard of trade assets is also limited, with no R1 pick this year. They're also lacking mid-range contracts that can work as fillers -- with no one in the $6-10M range that they can toss into a deal.
If the Sixers do make a trade for a better 6th-7th man, they'll have to be creative. They don't have a R1 pick, but they own Atlanta and New York's R2 pick. And as luck would have it, those are two of the worst teams in the NBA right now. Those picks should be in the 30-35 range, which gives them moderate value. Those picks, along with Zhaire Smith, represent their best chance at cobbling together a compelling trade package.
What's out there for that modest price? Let's take a look.
Meds On the Market
SG J.J. REDICK, New Orleans Pelicans
as a player
Philadelphia 76ers fans are more than familiar with Mr. Jonathan Clay Redick, who must have added the extra "J" in his name because of his shooting stroke. In his first season with Philadelphia (at age 33), Redick set a career high with 17.1 points per game. He followed that up by setting another career high with 18.1 PPG last season. Still, Redick’s performance in the playoffs left the team wanting more from the position, which resulted in a parting of the ways in free agency.
Now in New Orleans, Redick has kept on chugging. The Pelicans' season hasn't gone according to plan, but Redick is giving the team exactly what you'd expect. He hasn't lost his shooting touch at all; in fact, he's blazing at 46.0% from three this season.
Bringing Redick back to Philadelphia wouldn't be admitting to a mistake; it made sense to try and find a better defensive player in the starting lineup. Rather, Redick would contribute to the team in a different way. If he returns to Philly, he'd come off the bench and play about 25 minutes a night. In that role, he could give the second unit some pop and prevent any prolonged scoring/shooting slumps. There's very little risk of growing pains or adjustment either because he'd obviously be familiar with the system.
as an asset
The biggest issue with Redick right now is his age (35) and his sagging defensive performance. He's not cheap either, scheduled to get paid $13.5M this season and $13.5M the next. Unfortunately for the Pelicans, the team isn't likely to make waves in the Western Conference by the time that contract expires.
Despite that, I doubt that the Pelicans would dump Redick for nothing. He serves as a good mentor for them, and will make their young stars Brandon Ingram and Zion Williamson more effective with his spacing. However, if a team came to David Griffin with a genuine asset (let's say Zhaire Smith + contract filler), he'd have to listen. The Sixers would have to add up a bunch of contracts to make the math work (Zhaire + Mike Scott + Kyle O'Quinn + James Ennis, etc). That could be a risk because it'd test their already-tenuous depth. However, the goal isn't to have a strong 12-man depth chart; you want a strong 7-8 man rotation to make your playoff push.
SG E'TWAUN MOORE, New Orleans Pelicans
as a player
When the New Orleans Pelicans signed E'Twaun Moore to a sizable contract a few years ago, the reaction of most fans was... who? And even now, that's still the consensus take on Moore.
However, savvy NBA fans know that Moore has been an effective player for New Orleans. In a sense, he's what teams want in a "3+D" wing. He's shot over 42% from three in each of the past three seasons. Defensively, he's a little undersized in terms of his height (6'4"), but he's aided by a 6'9" wingspan that allows him to guard SGs and SFs effectively.
E'Twaun Moore's minutes are down this season (from 30 to 20, basically), due to increased depth and some injuries. However, when he's back to 100%, he can be an effective 5th starter or a high-level backup. Philadelphia could debate starting Moore (and sliding Horford to a 6th man role), or simply use him as a SG/SF backup to soak up minutes.
as an asset
If the New Orleans Pelicans decide to hold a garage sale, the Sixers and all contenders should be eyeing E'Twaun Moore. He's on the final year of a contract that will pay him $8.5M over the course of this season. It doesn't appear like Moore (age 30) will be a big part of the Pelicans' future, so they should theoretically be open to dealing him for future assets.
A deal here could be as simple as contract filler (like Kyle O'Quinn, Raul Neto, James Ennis, etc) plus one of those high R2 picks. Again, the Sixers' R2 picks will be at the top of the round, so they're not much different from a late first rounder.
PF MARVIN WILLIAMS, Charlotte Hornets
as a player
Historically, Marvin Williams may be best known as the hyped-up freshman who came off the bench for UNC and somehow managed to get drafted at # 2 ahead of the likes of Chris Paul. However, he's quietly hung around the league for years and years, becoming a solid starter in the process. He's played in 1046 games and started 827 of them.
The key for Williams' longevity has been his increased range and his effectiveness as a stretch four. Last season, he would have averaged 12.8 points and 6.9 rebounds per 36 minutes, hitting 36.6% of his threes in the process. That may not be anything to write home about, but it's enough to be a serviceable starter. Williams is also known as a good teammate, adding to his credibility as a reliable veteran.
Unfortunately for Williams, "reliable veteran" is not what the rebuilding Charlotte Hornets are looking for right now. His minutes have dropped from 28 to 20 this season, and he hasn't started a game all year (after starting 75/75 last season.) Now 33, Williams is past his prime, but he can still be a contributor for most teams. Philadelphia could debate starting Williams over Al Horford for extra spacing, or simply using him as an upgrade on Mike Scott.
as an asset
Presumably, the Charlotte Hornets would be willing to move Marvin Williams for future assets. He's a free agent this summer, and is not going to be a huge part of their future. I imagine they've already tried to shop him to contenders already.
However, one of the reasons that's hard to do is because of a fat salary that's going to pay him $15M this season. That's not an easy contract to match, especially for a team like Philadelphia that doesn't have a lot of mid-range contracts. They'd need to package together a lot of pieces (Mike Scott + James Ennis + Kyle O'Quinn + Raul Neto + more) to make the math work. And certainly, the Hornets would need something more than expiring contracts to make a deal like this worth it on their end. Could they get Zhaire Smith as a throw-in? Unlikely. Would a R2 pick be enough? Maybe. Two R2s? Probably. But hey, Elton Brand, Mitch Kupchak, you figure out the details here; my job is to be a matchmaker, not a negotiator.
The Sixers should look around the league for similar templates to these. That is: solid veterans who are playing for teams that may be tanking soon. To that end, PG Langston Galloway (DET) is another good option. Galloway (on a $8M expiring) is more of a spacer than a traditional point guard, but that would work well on a team with Ben Simmons. For the Sixers, he'd be a nice option off the bench.
The Knicks' SG Wayne Ellington (owed $8M + $8M) is also a good shooter, although he carries sizable risk coming off an Achilles injury. If he's healthy and 100%, he can be a bootleg J.J. Redick for you. If he's not healthy and able to contribute, then he'd be an albatross contract. On the bright side, he should be more than "available" given the Knicks' situation.
If you want to dumpster dive and look at the free agent pile, there are some other risks to consider. SG J.R. Smith was a complete disaster towards the end of his run in Cleveland, but perhaps he'd be more motivated on a competitive team. Fellow vet SG Iman Shumpert will be a more reliable source of effort/defense, although his shot was inconsistent even in his prime.
I'd be remiss not to mention two "big names" as well. Memphis SF Andre Iguodala will likely get bought out eventually (it'll be hard to find a trade partner to match his contract.) Would he fit in a return to Philly? Eh. Kinda sorta. He'd be another capable defender, but it's hard to envision how an aging Iguodala is a notable upgrade over an improving Mattise Thybulle.
Of course, the splashiest move would be to bring in Cleveland PF Kevin Love. Love and Al Horford would be a near 1:1 match in terms of contract salary and contract length. From Philly's perspective, you can argue that Love would fit better into the offense given his superior shooting and that the team can afford to take the subsequent hit on D. He's also "available" (especially after the Sham Charania's reports about his tirade.) The rebuilding Cleveland Cavs wouldn't have much interest in a 33-year-old Al Horford, but maybe there's some version of a 3-way trade to be had here. Overall, this type of semi-blockbuster would probably be too risky on all sides, but it's a fun hypothetical to consider nonetheless.
submitted by ZandrickEllison to nba [link] [comments]

What the people who made Halo 2 are up to now

Oh god, this took a while to put together.
The top recommendation from GTA 3 thread was Halo 2/3 or Shadowrun (2007) from Armonster. Halo 2 seemed like an interesting game to follow, so I researched it again. I decided to look at everyone from Bungie (and people who are listed as additional support. Even with the many, many, many names below, this is not everyone who worked on the game. Close to 50 additional people worked under Microsoft on everything from PR to testing, and this doesn’t even touch on the voice cast (except a few people who worked at Bungie and also supplied voices).
I've decided to break this up into three different categories: still at Bungie, at 343 Industries or Microsoft, and elsewhere. All names in each category are sorted by names.
Now, let's get started

At Bungie

Christopher Barrett worked as one of the lead environmental artist. He is currently serves as game director at Bungie and last worked as the art director at Bungie. He recently founded Oryx Design Lab, which creates pixel art sprites for games.
Chris Butcher worked as an engineering lead for the game. Butcher continues to work in engineering and in 2014 became engineering director. Butcher joined the board of directors of Bungie in 2013.
David Candland worked making the user interface for the game. Candland last worked as the UI lead for Destiny.
Frank Capezzuto III worked as a single-player environmental artist. Capezzutto currently is a senior concept artist and 3D production artist at the company. Capezzutto also worked with Weta and Marvel on non-game Halo projects.
Steve Cotton worked as multiplayer environment artist. Cotton last worked as one of the world art lead for Destiny.
Curtis Creamer worked as a producer for the game. He is currently is director of QA.
David Dunn worked as one of the lead environmental artists. He is currently head of art at the company.
Jamie Evans worked as one of the test leads for the game. Evans last worked as a test manager for Destiny.
Tom Gioconda worked as part of the team. Gioconda is currently a engineer.
Charles Gough worked as an engineering lead for Halo 2. Gough has continued to work in engineering, and was last credited as engineering Overhead for Destiny. According to his LinkedIn, Gough shifted job titles from "Grizzled Ancient" to "Disembodied Soul" at Bungie in 2016.
Tyson Green worked as a mission designer for Halo 2. He last worked as a design lead on Destiny.
Justin Hayward worked as a single-player environmental artist. Hayward was most recently the spec ops visual fx art lead for Destiny
Jason Jones worked as the project lead for Halo 2. He is still at Bungie and last worked on Destiny as a design lead. He still almost never gives interviews
Eamon McKenzie worked as one of the engineers for Halo 2. He is currently AI Engineering lead at the company.
Lorraine McLees worked as part of the team. She last worked as a designeillustrator for Destiny.
Robert McLees (also known as Robt) worked as a 3D artist for the game. McLees worked as a writer start with Halo 3, and last wrote for Destiny. He is married to Lorraine McLees.
James McQuillan worked providing additional support to the game. McQuillan worked at the company Film Oasis which created a documentary about the game. In 2006 he joined Bungie, where he is currently is creative director of visual identity and design. Esmeralda (or Esmerelda, there was some contradicting information) McQuillan is also listed for providing additional support for the game, but I'm unable to find any additional information.
Mat Noguchi worked as one of the engineers for the game. He last worked as one of the combat systems engineers on Destiny. He is also listed as one of the testers for Narbacular Drop (the team that made Narbacular later joined Valve to make Portal).
Bill O'Brien (credited as William) worked as an animator for the game and cinematics. O'Brien was an animation lead for Destiny. Before joining Bungie, O'Brien worked on Leisure Suit Larry: Love for Sail!
Pete Parsons worked as an executive producer for the game. Halo 2 (along with the multiplayer map pack) was the only game Parsons was credited with producing. He is still at Bungie and in 2016 CEO of the company. Parsons co-founded the advertising company Fyreball (which later became Meteor Solutions) in 2007. The company worked with Microsoft, AT&T and MTV and was sold to Covario in 2012. Parsons came to Bungie from a background of marketing (he marketed MechWarrior 4 for example) and was director of marketing for Halo 3: ODST.
Zach Russell worked as one of the test leads for Halo 2. Russell is currently director of special projects at Bungie, and last worked as head of infrastructure for Destiny.
Michael Salvatori worked providing additional support for the game. Salvatori runs the company TotalAudio, and composed music for the series with Martin O'Donnell. Salvatori has worked with Bungie over his career, last working on Destiny. He has also worked in audio for Stubbs the Zombie and Disney Guilty Party. Edit I listed Salvatori originally as working elsewhere because I couldn't determine if he is a director employee or Bungie or working by contract through TotalAudio. Since he is still making music for Bungie games I decided to move him here.
Luke Timmins worked as one of the engineers for Halo 2. In 2016 Timmins became head of engineering at Bungie.
Luis Villegas worked as a test tools engineer. Villegas last worked as matchmaking engineer lead for Destiny.
Ben Wallace worked as an engineering lead for Halo 2. He has continued to work as the company in engineering, and last worked as one of the engineering directors.
Shiek Wang (credited in Halo 2 as Shi Kai Wang) worked as the lead 3D and effects artist on the game. Wang still works at Bungie as art director, and was the 3D character art lead in Destiny. Wang's job before joining Bungie was working at Subway.
Jay Weinland worked as the audio lead for the game. Weinland last worked as the audio design lead for Destiny.
Roger Wolfson worked as a test tools engineer for the game. He last worked as the online services engineering lead for Destiny.
Mike (or Michael) Zak worked as a single-player environmental artist. Zak most recently worked as the world art team lead for Destiny.

At 343/Microsoft

Michel Bastien worked as a producer for the game. He left in 2006 to co-found Fyreball. In 2009 Bastien co-founded Moonshot games. In 2011 Bastien joined Turn 10 Studios, where has worked as a producer for the Forza series.
Doug Boyce worked as one of the test leads for the game. Boyce last worked as senior software quality engineer for Microsoft, but seems to have left in March.
Bart House worked as an engineer for Halo 2. He worked at Microsoft and was last credited for working on Shadowrun in 2007. I'm seems like House is still at Microsoft, but I can't find any definitive information about him.
Brian Jarrard worked as the lead. In 2016 Jarrard became community manager at 343.
Jason Major was an engineer for the game. Major joined Microsoft in 2005 and is credited as working on games including Fable II and Crackdown. He was the technical director for Project Spark. In 2014 Major joined the Minecraft team, where he currently works. If you remember the E3 HoloLens demo, Major helped build it
Frank O'Connor worked as one of the team. O'Conner helped write for Halo 3, and starting with Halo Reach became franchise creative director for the Halo series.
Greg Snook worked as an engineer for the game. Snook joined Microsoft in 2007 and has worked on games including Gears of Wars 2, Halo 5 and Kinect Adventures. Currently Snook is listed as working on Minecraft.
Joseph Staten was a writer and director of cinematics for Halo 2. Staten left Bungie in late 2013, and joined Microsoft shortly afterwards. He is senior creative director at Microsoft and has worked on ReCore, Quantum Break, and Killer Instinct. He has written Halo novels but currently is not on the series. Right now Staten is writing for Crackdown 3.


Steve Abeyta worked providing additional support for the game. Abeyta left Bungie in 2002, and founded CleverSense (which produced children's educational software) in 2003. In 2009 Abeyta joined ngmoco (which was later bought by DeNA) until the end of 2013. Over the next few years he worked at SK Planet, npnf, and ipvive. He currently works at Industrial Toys, which he joined in March.
Amanda Anderson is credited as one of the “Bungie Princesses” and worked in administration. Anderson left after Halo 2, but I'm unable to trace what she did afterwards.
Eric Arroyo worked as a 3D artist for the game. Arroyo left the company in 2008, and between then and 2014 worked for a bunch of companies. These companies were Certain Affinity, ngmoco, KE Studios, Epic/Chair, Signal Studios, Imba Games, Scattered Entertainment, Industrial Toys and Z2. In 2014 Arroyo joined Disney Interactive, where he currently works as a lead 3D artist.
J. David Atherton worked providing additional support for the game. Atherton runs Sonic Boom Sound, which records and edits actors for games. Some of the games Atherton has worked on includes Skyrim, Fallout 4 + New Vegas, Dishonored 1 + 2, Life is Strange and more.
Christopher Barney worked doing additional support. Barney continued to work with Microsoft until 2009, but after that I'm unable to trace anything about Barney.
Paul Bertone worked as a lead designer for Halo 2. He worked as a campaign designer lead in Halo 3 and design director for ODST and Reach (where he is listed as an additional design director) before leaving Bungie in 2012 (he is still credited in Destiny for additional design leadership) to join Industrial Toys. The company worked in mobile and in 2015 released the game Midnight Star. Bertone left shortly after release and is now self employed. I'm unable to find anything he's worked on since leaving Industrial Toys.
Travis Brady worked as a 3D artist for Halo 2. Brady continued to work as a 3D artist at Bungie until 2015, when he joined Highwire Games to work as the character art director. The first game Brady worked on was The Lost Mind of Dr. Brain in 1995.
Zoé Brawley worked doing additional support. Brawley left Bungie after Halo 2, and I'm unable to follow anything they did afterwards.
Mike Budd worked as an animator for the game and its cinematics. Budd joined n-Space in 2004 and worked there for 5 years. In that time Budd worked on games including Geist, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 and the DS version of Call of Duty 4. In 2009 Budd founded Nightlight Games. Currently Budd works as a freelancer, runs Nightlight Games, and teaches at Full Sail University.
John Butkus worked as an animator for the game and its cinematics. Butkus left Bungie in 2008 to work at Blizzard. Butkus still at Blizzard as a senior animator for World of Warcraft.
Chris Carney worked as the lead multiplayer environment artist. Carney continued to work at Bungie until 2015 (he was one of the world design leads for Destiny) before joining Riot Games as a principal level designer.
Hao Chen worked in engineering for the game. Chen became an engineering lead at Bungie and joined Amazon as senior principal engineer in 2015.
Travis Chen worked as a software test engineer for the game. After Halo 2 Chen worked at Neversoft and Blizzard, working on games such as Guitar Hero, GUN, World of Warcraft, and Call of Duty: Ghosts. Chen currently works as creative director at Bad Robot Interactive and as an engineer at Snapchat.
Hamilton Chu worked as one of the producers for Halo 2. Chu left Bungie in 2004 to join Electronic Arts. He only worked at the company for 9 months before joining Spectrum Mediaworks for 4 months before co-founding Giant Bite. He then ran a consulting company before joining Blizzard in 2008. He is still at Blizzard, where he is senior vice president and executive producer at the company. He is currently working on Hearthstone.
Paul Clift worked in art production for the game. Clift last worked as the technical art lead for Halo 3. After that I'm unable to find any information about what Clift did.
Mike Cody worked as a software test engineer. Cody became an audio director at Microsoft and worked on games such as Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends and Ms. Splosion Man before leaving in 2012. Cody now works at Lionbridge, which is a translation and localization company for everything from banking to video games (Lionbridge worked on the translations of games such as Guild Wars 2 and The Witcher 3).
CJ Cowan worked as the cinematic director for Halo 2. Cowan continued to work at Bungie as the lead story designer on Destiny and it's expansions before leaving the company in 2016.
Vic DeLeon worked as a single-player environmental artist for the game. DeLeon left Bungie in 2010 to work with Microsoft on Halo 4 and 5. In 2015 he joined Highwire Games. DeLeon also worked on the PC version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
Tom Doyle worked as a single-player environmental artist. Doyle continued to work in art and was the 3D hard surface art lead for Destiny. He left Bungie in 2015 to help found Endeavor One.
Michael Evans was an engineering lead for the game. He worked with Rare in 2005 to help finish Perfect Dark Zero before co-founding the company Giant Bite the same year. The company didn't release any games, and in 2006 Evans co-founded Fyreball and worked there until 2009. Evans joined Blizzard in 2009 to work as lead gameplay engineer for their next MMO. The game was later canceled and parts were reused to make Overwatch. Evans left before Titan was official canceled to join Riot Games, where he currently works as senior software engineer.
Jeremy Fones worked making additional animations for the game. Fones worked at Bungie until 2008, when he joined Vigil games to work on Darksiders and the canceled Warhammer 40k: Dark Millennium. Fones worked as a contract animator for Destiny for a year before joining Motiga for 3 years. In 2016 Fones joined Epic as a senior animator.
Bernie Freidin worked as an engineer for the game. Halo 2 was the last Bungie game Freidin is credited as working on. He seems to currently be at Rockstar, and was last credited as a senior graphics programmer for Grand Theft Auto 5.
Jaime Griesemer worked as one of the lead designers for Halo 2. Griesemer continued to work in design until 2010, when he left. He worked on early planning and prototypes of Destiny and is credited for additional design leadership. Griesemer then joined Sucker Punch, where he helped do additional design for Infamous: Festival of Blood before becoming lead designer for Infamous: Second Son. He also served as creative director of Infamous: Paper Trail before leaving to co-found Highwire Games, where he is currently working on the game Golem. In the last few years Griesemer has also worked as a game design consultant for companies such as Ready At Dawn, Activision Blizzard and Treyarch.
Alta Hartmann (now Alta Schlosser) is credited as one of the “Bungie Princesses” and worked in administration. Schlosser joined Avanade in 2007, where she still works.
Dawn Hershey worked providing additional support for Halo 2. Hershey runs a casting company and has worked on everything from Spongebob Squarepants to Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law.
Max Hoberman worked and multiplayer and UI lead for the game. Hoberman left Bungie in 2006 to form Certain Affinity. Since it was founded Certain Affinity has helped work on games and series including Left 4 Dead, Halo, Call of Duty and Doom. Hoberman continues to serve as president for the company.
Ryan Hylland worked as a software test engineer. Hylland joined Microsoft in 2005 and later joined Turn 10 in 2008. In 2016 Hylland left Microsoft and seems to now be at Unity as a software test engineer.
Dàmiàn Isla worked as an engineer for the game. Isla helped found Moonshot Games in 2009. He most recently helped found The Molasses Flood which made The Flame and Flood. Isla also did additional programming for Destiny and Bioshock Infinite.
Claire Jennings worked doing additional support. She worked at Microsoft until 2013. Currently Jennings is a graduate research assistant at University of Washington Bothell.
C Paul Johnson worked as a sound designer for the game. Johnson continued to work in sound design and was composer and audio design lead for Destiny. In 2016 Johnson left Bungie to form his own company Trigger Volume.
Hardy F. LeBel Sr. worked doing additional mission design for the game. LeBel had left Bungie in 2001 (he was lead multiplayer designer for Halo 1) but came back to help on Halo 2. After Halo 2 LeBel joined Zipper Interactive as creative directer until 2006. In 2006 LeBel became CEO of Tyrant Studios, which was a game design consulting firm. In his time at Tyrant Studios LeBel also served as gameplay director at Crystal Dynamics and project director at Signal Studios. In 2012 LeBel joined Industrial Toys, which he left in 2013. LeBel currently is releasing game design videos and is releasing books.
Chris Y. J. Lee worked making additional single-player environmental art. Lee left Bungie in 2004 to work as CCO at Doppelganger Inc. In the years since Lee has worked at companies including ngmoco, and last worked at npnf, inc in 2015. Fun fact: There is another Chris Lee who helped market Halo 2. That Chris Lee is now the director of marketing at Netflix for North America, Australia, and New Zealand.
Aaron Lieberman worked as a test tools engineer for the game. Lieberman continued to work for Bungie until 2016, when he joined Oculus as a software engineer.
Marcus Lehto worked as art director for the game. It seems like he initially left Bungie in 2011 but then stayed another year (he is still credited for additional art direction for Destiny). He was creative director for Halo: Reach. When he totally left in 2012 he helped form V1 Interactive, which is still working on their first game.
Stacey Moore worked as an additional animator for the game. Moore left Microsoft in 2004 to work at Take-Two on Amped 3, and later joined Activision in 2006 to work on games including Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 for 360 and Bee Movie for DS. In 2007 Moore joined Junction Point, where he was a senior animator for Epic Mickey 1 and 2. I'm unable to find any specifics for what Moore worked on after 2013.
Damien Neff worked as an additional programmer for the game. Neff is listed as working on 007: From Russia with Love and Forza 2 and 3. After that I am unable to trace Neff.
Martin O'Donnell was the composer and audio director for the game. O'Donnell continued to work at Bungie until 2014, when he was fired from the company. He then sued over his firing and reached a settlement later that year. O'Donnell is currently working at Highwire games as audio director for their game Golem.
Stephen Okasaki worked providing additional mission design for Halo 2. Okasaki joined Neversoft in 2004 and worked on Tony Hawk's Project 8 and Gun before leaving in 2006. Okasaki then worked at Concrete Games working on an unannounced game before joining Hi-Rez Games to work on Global Agenda. After a year-long job at Red 5 working on Fire Fall Okasaki returned to Neversoft to work on Call of Duty and an unannounced FPS. Neversoft merged with Infinity Ward, and Okasaki currently works as a designer on Call of Duty.
Adrian Perez worked as an engineer for Halo 2. Perez left Bungie in 2013 (he is still credited as simulations engineer for Destiny) and joined Sucker Punch as a senior programmer. In 2015 Perez joined Highwire Games but left in February 2017 to work as a senior software engineer at Google. Perez also left an Easter egg in Halo 3 wishing his wife a happy birthday.
Kelly Rains worked as an additional 3D artist. Rains worked at Microsoft at the time, but left in 2002. Since then Rains has worked at Midway, Warner Brothers, U4iA, and Monolith. Rains is last credited as working on multiplayer environmental art for Halo 5 as part of Insight Global.
Juan Ramirez worked as a 3D artist for the game. Ramirez left Bungie in 2004 to work at Wideload games. In 2009 Ramirez started Fantom Eye Productions, where he still works.
Paul Russel worked as a single-player environmental artist. Russel left Bungie in 2010 and started work at Certain Affinity as a environmental artist in 2011. Russel founded spazdesign in 2012 and has worked with companies including Moonshot Games and Industrial Toys.
Harold Ryan worked as producer of and test manager for the game. Ryan later became president of Bungie until he left in 2016. During his time at Bungie he was sued by Martin O'Donnell, which he settled in 2014. He currently works as President at PeopleKnot Inc, which I'm unable to find any information about.
Steve Scott worked in effects for the game. Scott last worked as the visual FX art lead for Destiny. In 2016 he left Bungie and currently works at HBO as a senior design engineer.
Stefan Sinclair worked as one of the engineers for the game. In 2008 Sinclair left Bungie to work at Certain Affinity. At Certain Affinity Sinclair worked on games and series including Call of Duty, Halo, and Doom. Sinclair left Certain Affinity in 2015 to work at IVxIV Software, which he founded in 2012. IVxIV has worked on games such as RWBY: Grim Eclipse and created websites that help create Big Brother / Big Sister matches.
Eddie Smith worked making matte paintings for the game. Smith left Bungie in 2006, and since then has worked for companies including Sony Online Entertainment, Day One Studios, DeNA and Microsoft. Smith is currently art director at Soulbound Studio.
Matthew Soell worked doing additional support. Soell joined Wideload Games in 2003 as lead writer. In 2013 Soell joined Certain Affinity, where he still works.
Rob Stokes worked as a mission designer for the game. Stokes left Bungie in 2007 and co-founded Moonshot Games in 2009. Stokes joined Blizzard in 2011 as a senior story developer for Titan. He then joined Harmonix and worked on a canceled Xbox One Kinect game. During his time at Harmonix Stokes also worked with Harebrained Schemes on Shadowrun Returns and Dragonfall. Also during this time at Harmonix he worked designing levels for Moonshot games. Stokes left Harmonix in 2013 and joined ArenaNet in 2014, where he currently works.
Steve Vai worked providing additional support for the game. Vai is a famous guitar player, and was on three of the game's tracks.
Nathan Walpole worked as an animator for the game and its cinematics. Walpole left Bungie in 2008 to work on Halo 4 at 343. He then joined ZeniMax Online to work on Elder Scrolls Online for a year and in 2013 began to teach at Champlain College.
Lee Wilson worked providing additional support for the game. At the time Wilson worked as a freelance storyboard and concept artist. He joined Bungie in 2005 and left in 2012 (he is credited as an additional cinematic artist for Destiny). Wilson then worked with Sucker Punch on Infamous until 2016, when he joined V1 Interactive.
Michael Wu worked as a single-player environmental artist. Wu left Bungie in 2011 (they are credited in Destiny's credits) to work at EA. Wu worked on Dead Space 3, and left in 2013. Wu currently works at Cleveland Institute of Art where they teach.
Ok, that was a lot of people. I’ve put together a partial list below of a few of the studios that had/have multiple Halo 2 devs at them.
  • Fyreball - Michel Bastien, Michael Evans, Pete Parsons
  • Moonshot Games - Michel Bastien, Dàmiàn Isla, Paul Russe, Rob Stokes
  • ngmoco - Steve Abeyta, Eric Arroyo, Chris Y. J. Lee
  • Industrial Toys - Steve Abeyta, Eric Arroyo, Paul Bertone, Hardy F. LeBel Sr., Paul Russel
  • Certain Affinity - Eric Arroyo, Max Hoberman, Paul Russel, Stefan Sinclair, Matthew Soell
  • Highwire Games - Travis Brady, Vic DeLeon, Jaime Griesemer, Martin O'Donnell, Adrian Perez
  • Giant Bite - Hamilton Chu, Michael Evans
  • V1 Interactive - Marcus Lehto, Lee Wilson
  • Sucker Punch - Jaime Griesemer, Adrian Perez, Lee Wilson
submitted by Forestl to Games [link] [comments]

[Sessler] Ten offseason storylines that will shape the 2018 NFL season

Article here if you want to open it, but if you don’t here it is:
1) Indy's coaching search, Andrew Luck's shoulder and what comes next: Colts general manager Chris Ballard faced the music Wednesday morning, less than 24 hours after the team was jilted by Josh McDaniels. "Let me make this clear. I want, and we want as an organization, a head coach that wants to be all in," Ballard said, calling for "someone that's 100 percent committed."
McDaniels' decision to stay in New England as offensive coordinator -- and potentially as Bill Belichick's successor -- rather than coach the Colts triggered a domino effect that could directly impact, among others, the world-champion Eagles. Philly play-caller Frank Reich reportedly sits high on a list of candidates for Indy's top job. The Colts could also send Kansas City into shuffle mode by plucking special teams ace Dave Toub.
Whoever takes the job will suddenly be forced into the same role that plagued Ballard on Wednesday and all of last season: answering questions about the status of Andrew Luck. "He doesn't need surgery," Ballard said point-blank, but the status of Luck's shoulder remains a hot-to-the-touch talking point for the second straight offseason. Stay tuned.
2) The Cousins ripple effect: About to be replaced in Washington by Alex Smith, former Redskins starting quarterback Kirk Cousins is set to become the hottest free-agent prize since Peyton Manning was cut loose by the Colts in 2012. Will Broncos football czar John Elway -- playing super-recruiter once again -- put an end to Denver's tedious quarterback carousel by luring Cousins west? Whoever wants Cousins will be asked to pay nearly $30 million per year after Jimmy Garoppolo inked his massive five-year, $137.5 million contract with the Niners on Thursday. Quarterback money is prepped to blow through the roof this offseason, making Philly's combined salary for Wentz and Foles -- south of $10 million combined for 2018 -- the steal of the decade.
3) Blowing up the catch rule: Commissioner Roger Goodell knows the NFL's hyper-vague catch rule has pushed fans to the brink. "I'm not just somewhat concerned. I am concerned," Goodell said of the drunkenly layered set of rules around what constitutes a catch. "From our standpoint, I would like to start back, instead of adding to the rule, subtracting the rule. Start over again and look at the rule fundamentally from the start." These are the most promising words yet about the possibility of stripping away and simplifying the overwritten rulebook. On a hopeful note, the playoffs -- especially the Super Bowl -- were imbued with fewer ponderous reversals from New York. Don't hold your breath for major changes, but at least Goodell sees what we all see.
4) Who plays quarterback for the Vikings? Speaking of Cousins, the Vikings loom as another juicy suitor, especially with the Jaguars potentially tied to a fifth-year option on Blake Bortles if the passer's surgically repaired wrist isn't fully healed by March 16. Minnesota is about to watch Case Keenum, Sam Bradford and Teddy Bridgewater hit free agency. There's still a chance that Bridgewater's contract could toll for another year, keeping him on the roster -- but the Vikings are preparing for every one of their arms to become available. My guess on who stays? It's Teddy. Head coach Mike Zimmer loves Bridgewater, who's still just 25 years old and was seen as the clear-cut franchise answer before the catastrophic knee injury that struck in August of 2016.There's a scenario where Keenum sticks, too, but his contract is tricky in a ballooning free-agent market for passers. It's also fair to wonder if Keenum could wind up in New York with ex-Vikings play-caller and new Giants coach Pat Shurmur. As for Bradford, his lengthy injury history puts him in last place for a long-term deal with the Vikings.
5) The college quarterback pecking order: In his first mock draft, NFL Network's Daniel Jeremiah, along with the rest of our experts, projected Sam Darnold of USC to become Cleveland's choice with the top overall pick. Browns draft consultant Scot McCloughan, though, came out strong (before being hired in Cleveland) for Baker Mayfield, while new Browns general manager John Dorsey also praised the Oklahoma passer. Simultaneously, a league scout told The MMQB's Peter King there is "no way" the Browns will pass on Wyoming's Josh Allen.
Obviously, this means Cleveland will turn around and pick UCLA's Josh Rosen, right?
It's a fool's task, to be sure, but let's unfurl our DEEPLY UNRELIABLE SIGNAL-CALLING MATCHMAKER-BOT 1.0, which quickly and haphazardly pairs available veteran and draft-eligible quarterbacks with needy teams:
» Browns: Baker Mayfield
» Giants: Josh Rosen
» Broncos: Kirk Cousins
» Jets: Sam Darnold
» Dolphins: Stay put with Ryan Tannehill
» Cardinals: Josh Allen, Tyrod Taylor
» Bills: Case Keenum
» Vikings: Teddy Bridgewater
6) The evolving state of the Patriots: New England has done a nice job of bottling up its occasional frustrations and keeping mum with the media. Any in-house or outside-generated controversy has historically become fuel for the team en route to another 13-win season. But has the pattern finally been shaken? With McDaniels lured back to Foxborough, his return hints at a post-Belichick regime that will eventually forge on without the services of Tom Brady.
The odds are low, but I wouldn't be stunned to see Belichick suddenly retire in the coming weeks. The more likely scenario is one last go-around for the Patriots as we know them, but this looms as a fascinating offseason for a team that has operated as the most consistent superpower in professional sports since the start of the century.
7) Gruden's reshaping of the Raiders: The Silver and Black are either (A) a playoff-worthy team that lost its way last season, or (B) the remnant of a fluky postseason campaign in 2016. Either way, Jon Gruden faces immediate pressure to get Oakland back to the party next season. In what feels like a boom-or-bust scenario, Chucky will double as headline news every time he opens his mouth. It promises to be a wild ride for Raiders fans, but it's easy to forget Gruden's final years in Tampa Bay (45-51 with an 0-2 playoff record after winning Super Bowl XXXVII). Anything less than a double-digit-win season is bound to disappoint a fan base expecting its returning coach to act as a savior from the skies.
8) The growth of Patrick Mahomes: With Alex Smith out of the picture, the Chiefs have officially handed the offense to Mahomes, the cannon-armed second-year passer who gives coach Andy Reid a rare skill set to work with. Unlike the uber-experienced Smith, Mahomes owns just one NFL start and lingering questions about his raw skill set. A year ago, we were asking if Jared Goff could bounce back from a lost rookie season in Los Angeles, and if Wentz could iron out some of the mechanical issues that affected his first NFL campaign. After both passers made massive second-year leaps, Mahomes sits on the horizon as one of the NFL's next burgeoning stars. On a roster littered with offensive talent and strong coaching, he's in good position to shine.
9) NFC North facelift: Talk about an evolving four-pack of teams. With a healthy Aaron Rodgers back in the mix, the Packers have promised a more aggressive approach to free agency under new general manager Brian Gutekunst. Minnesota must replace a star assistant in Shurmur and figure out the quarterback position, but the club's core roster remains intact. In Chicago, first-time head coach Matt Nagy is charged with flipping the switch on second-year passer Mitchell Trubisky. It's been eons since the Bears were fun to watch on offense, but Chicago's decision to nab former Oregon head coach Mark Helfrich as coordinator makes this an attack to monitor all offseason. And don't forget about the Lions, who have a top-10 passer in Matthew Stafford and one of the game's more intriguing rookie coaches in Matt Patricia. After watching a legion of Belichickites flame out at the head-coaching level, can Patricia transform a Lions team that seemed content to go 9-7 for the rest of time under the last guy?
10) Who will make Saquon Barkley the center of their universe? The past two drafts have seen NFL teams completely revamp their attacks after picking plug-and-play star runners. The Cowboys did it with Ezekiel Elliott in 2016 before the Jaguars followed suit with Leonard Fournette in 2017. Alvin Kamara in New Orleans and Kareem Hunt in Kansas City also morphed into top-tier rainmakers. With Barkley mocked as high as No. 1 to the Browns, the Penn State wonder looms as one of the draft's most intriguing figures. The Giants (at No. 2) and the Colts (at No. 3) have gone without game-changing backs for years on end. Barkley would be a welcome sight in both New York and Indianapolis, but it wouldn't be shocking to see a team trade up if it believes Barkley can match what Elliott and others have brought to the table.
submitted by PotRoastBoobs to nfl [link] [comments]

Premium Proposals: Assorted Light Cruisers, Part 3

Greetings everyone! As promised, here's the third round of light cruisers. After this, I will be starting on a full tech tree line/split concept. A list of the ones I have in mind are at the bottom of this post.
With that out of the way, let's not dally further.

T6: HWsMS Tre Kronor (Sweden)

A pair of light cruisers begun at the outbreak of WWII, the Tre Kronor class represented a radical shift in Sweden's self-defense policy, with their fleet of coastal-defense battleships and torpedo boats augmented by two powerful long-ranged destroyer squadrons, with each to be led by a light cruiser. Though renown throughout the world as a producer of quality arms thanks to Bofors, the Swedes lacked experience in shipbuilding, and after the unsatisfactory experience of Gotland, the navy was reluctant to stay at home. Thus, the design of the ship was outsourced to Italy, though most fittings remained of Swedish origin.
Though ordered in 1940, production delays resulted in the ships only being launched near the very end of the European war, and commissioned long afterwards. Modernized to keep up with the pace of technology, they saw a typical service life for warships in the Cold War before being paid off in the late 1960s. Tre Kronor's remains were used as part of a pontoon bridge, while Gota Lejon was sold to Chile as Almirante Latorre, where she served until 1986.


Two words: Glass cannon. Displacing a light 9348 tons at full combat load, Tre Kronor weighs in with 27300 HP, with only Huang He and Nurnberg/Admiral Makarov being lighter among T6 CAs. Fortunately, Tre Kronor's armor is better than theirs, with a 30mm weather deck stretching the length of her citadel and another layer of 30mm deck armor protecting its roof. The citadel itself is also fairly low in the hull, reaching the waterline around the engine spaces. This provides a good measure of resistance against critical damage by AP shells, but her HE resistance is still very poor.
With such low armor it's probably not a surprise that the TDS is also a flat 0%.


Main Battery: 1x3, 2x2 152mm/53 Model 1942
  • Reload time: 4.0s
  • 180 traverse time: 10s
  • Sigma value: 2.0
  • Dispersion/range ratio: 8.74m dispersion/km range
  • HE shell: 152mm HE
  • Maximum HE shell damage: 2000
  • Base fire chance: 9%
  • HE penetration: standard (25mm)
  • AP shell: 152mm AP
  • Maximum AP shell damage: 3000
  • AP shell weight: 101lbs
  • Initial AP velocity: 900m/s
  • Initial HE velocity: 900m/s
Great guns, but Tre Kronor's triple turret faces forwards, and the rear turret arcs are nothing spectacular. Like Nurnberg, a poorly-timed turn will see you killed quickly. Fortunately, though she lacks 360-degree turrets, the fast turret rotation speed makes up for that.
Anti-Aircraft Battery:
  • Weapons: 20x1 Bofors SAK-40/L70, 9x1 25mm akan L/64
  • Average DPS: 254.1/34.7
  • Base range: 3.51km/3.09km
Equipped with only anti-surface capable main guns, Tre Kronor thankfully lacks the long-ranged DPS aura of the other ship to use these guns, De Zeven Provincien. However, don't be fooled by the short range: the damage output on these next-generation Bofors autocannons is ferocious. With bar-none the most powerful Bofors DPS aura in her matchmaking spread, exceeding even North Carolina, Tre Kronor doesn't need DF to defend herself, and, if her captain takes AA range skills, neither will anyone she's covering. Thus I'm going to remove access to Defensive Fire.
Of note is that the DPS should be a lot higher, in the 300s at least, because these are single mounts and thus lack the damage penalty WG imposes on multi-barreled AA mounts. That's strictly overkill at T6, DF or not. The fact upgraded versions of the same basic design are still being built today for use in CIWS systems should be testament enough to this weapon's true capabilities.
Torpedo Battery: 2x3 533mm Type 14 Angtorped
  • Reload time: 69.0s
  • 180 traverse time: 7.2s
  • Maximum damage: 12281
  • Flood chance: 188%
  • Torpedo speed: 55 knots
  • Spotting distance: 1.0km
  • Range: 10.4km
  • Fire mode: Standard (wide spread/narrow spread)
Swedish torpedoes either have big warheads with short range, or stupidly-long range with bad warheads. Short-ranged nukes are hilarious, but not really a weapon you could feasibly use on a cruiser like Tre Kronor give her poor armor. That said, the Type 14 has a horrific 50-knot run speed coupled with 13km range, so I adjusted the stats by adding an innate torpedo acceleration buff.
If you guys are curious about where I pulled the torpedo stats from, here's the link. Not the most authoritative-looking source for sure, and it's all in Swedish, but the numbers are at least a general neighborhood (and certainly better than what NavWeaps has). I've also seen no glaringly-unreasonable figures among those listed, so for the purposes of eyeballing it, this works just fine.


Being a little bit wider but the same length as Nurnberg, Tre Kronor's maneuverability is about the same, with a 710m turning circle but longer rudder shift of 7.8s. She's also of virtually-identical speed, producing 100000SHP for a top speed of 33 knots.


Having a rather compact superstructure, Tre Kronor's concealment is pretty good for T6 at 11.58km surface detection and 7.03km air detection. The smoke-firing penalty is better than Nurnberg’s at about 5.63km thanks to the lower surface detection. Decent, but not hydro range.
Speaking of which, with no ability to run DF, captains will always be sticking with hydro, and thus I will only be giving her standard T6 hydro with 3.96km ship spotting range, 2.82km torpedo detection range, and 92s duration. It's not as if there's a real downside to being able to use only hydro anyways.

T7: HMS Bermuda (United Kingdom)

Designed as an augment to the Royal Navy's small fleet of Dido-class cruisers, K-25 was a series of light cruisers envisioned as part of the Crown Colony class' design process. These designs, running from K-25A to K-25F, all had 7 or 8 twin 5.25"/50 turrets, but to fit that many guns, many had to be mounted either side-by-side or very high up on the hull. Compounding this issue was the fact they were to be armored to the same degree as their counterparts on the King George V class, rather than unarmored like those on the Didos.
Eventually, it was determined that the mediocrity of their intended main battery, combined with the turret placement issue, created a surface combatant whose deficiencies were not worth their utility as an anti-aircraft cruiser, and the designers went back to the Town class to start anew, finally commissioning the Crown Colonies as design K-31, which resembled little more than a stripped-down Town class.
A couple things before I go further. Firstly, I'm aware that Bermuda was the name of an actual Crown Colony class, but other than having a somewhat-ominous namesake little of her history is of note. Certainly not compared to some members of the class that we would see as premiums first. Secondly, I know a lot of the more historically-minded here are dubious of Tzoli's work, but this particular drawing is based off the actual design plans for K-25F as far as I can tell. However, I did make some modernizations to the light AA armament.


K-25F was designed to meet the same displacement target as the actual Bermuda, 8000 tons standard displacement, a limit set by the London Naval Treaty. I would thus figure that Bermuda has similar HP to Fiji - call it 31400 HP, though not for-sure identical because there's some uncertainty in the actual combat displacement here.
As a British CL, Bermuda has the standard survivability attributes of the line - 13mm exterior armor and a standard BB heal (10% citadel recovery only) at T7. The ship's armor belt is also thinner than Fiji's at 76mm compared to the latter's 114mm. However, at least her citadel isn't any bigger or taller by my estimation - not that Fiji's is hard to hit in the first place.


Main Battery: 8x2 133mm/50 QF RP10 MKII
  • Reload time: 6.67s
  • 180 traverse time: 9.0s
  • Sigma value: 2.0
  • Dispersion/range ratio: 10.27m dispersion/km range
  • HE shell: 133mm HE
  • Maximum HE shell damage: 1900
  • Base fire chance: 8%
  • HE penetration: standard (22mm)
  • AP shell: 133mm AP
  • Maximum AP shell damage: 2500
  • AP shell weight: 80lbs
  • Initial AP velocity: 792m/s
  • Initial HE velocity: 792m/s
As with Royalist a while back, I assumed these were the RP10 turrets on postwar ships because this gun is awful without that assumption. Still, make no mistake; you're no Atlanta or Flint - Bermuda can only bring 6 of her 8 turrets to bear on a broadside. However, her axial firepower is pretty impressive, with all 4 turrets in each cluster able to engage targets in at least a 90-degree cone directly in front or behind.
Anti-Aircraft Battery:
  • Weapons: 8x2 133mm/50 QF RP10 MKII, 2x4 40mm Bofors MKII, 6x2 40mm Bofors MKII, 4x2 20mm Oerlikon MKV
  • Average DPS: 60.6/31.8/73.8/24.4
  • Base range: 5.01km/3.51km/3.51km/2.01km
It should really say a lot about both how crappy the 5.25"/50 was and how little recognition WG gives it that I had to basically copy-paste Fiji's light AA battery to give Bermuda comparable AA despite the huge number of DP guns.
Torpedo Battery: 2x3 533mm MK IX
  • Reload time: 72s
  • 180 traverse time: 7.2s
  • Maximum damage: 15433
  • Flood chance: 257%
  • Torpedo speed: 61 knots
  • Spotting distance: 1.3km
  • Range: 8.0km
  • Fire mode: Single-fire (tube-by-tube/narrow spread)
What even is the point of Fiji's torpedo upgrade? Neither buff is really significant (Juliet Whiskey Unaone gives almost the same flood chance increase). In any case, because of Bermuda's greater DPM and ability to use HE, she has Fiji's stock torpedoes instead. Totally not because I can't type the upgraded one's designation without messing up my formatting.


Not much to see here. Being a Fiji preliminary she has the same 590m turning circle and 8.6s rudder shift. Bermuda's top speed is a smidge slower at 32 knots rather than 32.5, but the latter was a very optimistic figure for the Crown Colonies anyways.
As I did with Royalist, I want to make Bermuda a viable UK CL trainer, hence she retains their whack engine physics.


Again, Bermuda is inheriting a lot from her cousin. With the same profile and hull size she has 11.52km surface detection and 7.26km air detection range. However, thanks to her smaller main guns, her smoke-firing penalty is lower at 4.73km.
Bermuda will also get the same smoke, with 103s cloud duration and the UK CL standard 15s active duration, as well as the same hydro, with 4.20km ship detection range, 2.97km torpedo detection range, and 94s duration. As with Fiji she can trade it for catapult fighter and spotter plane, though why you would is beyond me when the arcs on this ship suck even more than normal British cruisers'.

T8: Slava (Soviet Union)

A series of AA cruiser designs for the postwar Soviet Navy based on the hullform of Project 68bis (the Sverdlov class), Project 84 was a series of light cruisers very similar in principle to the Altanta and Neptune class cruisers built for Western navies, utiliziing a large dual-purpose main battery. These consisted of the new generation of high-velocity 130mm guns, totaling between 8 and 12 guns, with the typical brace of torpedo tubes and a smattering of lighter 45mm and 25mm AA guns. One design even went so far as to mount no less than 16 130mm/58 guns, grouping them into 4 DP quad turrets. Another would replace these guns with 152mm/57 guns (unclear as to whether these were intended to be DP weapons or not) and purge the torpedoes to fit 8 130mm twin secondary turrets as well as 6 quad 45mm AA mounts and a helipad.
For the purposes of this proposal, I will be going with the 6x2 130mm configuration, as we are looking basically at a Kutuzov replacement here.


Built on a slightly-enlarged Project 68bis hull and displacing about 15000 tons standard load (with a rough estimate of 18040 tons fully-loaded), Slava has a massive hit point pool of 43500HP, behind only the two Hipper sisters at T8. Still, I can't say this displacement was all put to good use, because I've found no evidence that any armor upgrades over the Sverdlov class were implemented. So, the same 0% TDS and thin 100mm belt, with a citadel that is in all likelihood a larger percentage of her length than Kutuzov's is. Who, mind you, isn't exactly hard to citadel if caught broadside. I'm also going to give her another handicap in this field by giving her the 16mm plating of Edinburgh and other UK CLs, which leaves her vulnerable to overmatch from Henri IV, Graf Spee, and the large cruisers of high-tier, a weakness not shared with most other cruisers.


Stalinium Atlanta. Enough of a summary, let's get to the details.
Main Battery: 6x2 130mm/60 BL-109A
  • Reload time: 4.0s
  • 180 traverse time: 10s
  • Sigma value: 2.0
  • Dispersion/range ratio: 8.84m dispersion/km range
  • HE shell: 130mm HE-42
  • Maximum HE shell damage: 1800
  • Base fire chance: 8%
  • HE penetration: standard (21mm)
  • AP shell: 130mm SAP-42
  • Maximum AP shell damage: 2600
  • AP shell weight: 73.6lbs
  • Initial AP velocity: 950m/s
  • Initial HE velocity: 950m/s
I've been able to find nothing about whether 60 calibers was the BL-109A's rounded or actual barrel length figure, or whether this weapon was a separate design from the SM-2-1 mount that did see service. However, given the numerous similarities in design, performance, and ballistic qualities, I'm inclined to believe the BL-109A was either an earlier designation for the SM-2-1 or an offshoot of that design effort. Those familiar with Russian DDs, particularly Grozovoi, will know these weapons are far more suited to open-water gunnery than the 5"/38s on Atlanta.
Anti-Aircraft Battery:
  • Weapons: 6x2 130mm/60 BL-109A, 2x4 45mm SM-20-ZIF, 4x4 25mm 4M-120, 6x2 25mm 2M-3
  • Average DPS: 167.4/41.2/33.6/35.4
  • Base range: 5.7km/3.51km/3.09km/3.09km
Befitting her role as an anti-aircraft cruiser, Slava's punch is concentrated in her DP main battery. With a 5.7km base range and matching the DPS output of Mikhail Kutuzov every step of the way, she really only faces competition from the upcoming T8 Cleveland and downtiered Baltimore, but the Americans' edge is mostly in having large numbers of quad Bofors mounts to bolster their mid-ranged AA.
Slava will also get Defensive AA fire, and in keeping with AA cruiser tradition, she gets infinite charges of it. However, her DF multiplier is scaled back to that of Essex's, 1.25x, rather than cruiser-standard 3x, because the AA would be horrendously overpowered for T8 otherwise. Regardless of this nerf, Slava's AA is a threat to any carrier even without DF active or a full AA build.
Torpedo Battery: 2x4 533mm 53-36 mod. 2
  • Reload time: 93.6s
  • 180 traverse time: 7.2s
  • Maximum damage: 14400
  • Flood chance: 240%
  • Torpedo speed: 55 knots
  • Spotting distance: 1.1km
  • Range: 8.0km
  • Fire mode: Standard (wide spread/narrow spread)
I gave Slava the torpedoes of Dmitri Donskoi rather than Kutuzov mostly for consistency's sake. The 53-51 torpedo is unique to Kutuzov, even though Donskoi, Udaloi, Khabarovsk, and Grozovoi are of a similar era. Regardless, the performance differences are minimal.


As with survivability, I've found nothing to indicate that Project 84 had any marked improvements over 68bis. Thus I will give Slava the same top speed of 33 knots at 125000SHP (my estimate of how much more power it would take to reach that speed with the slightly-heavier displacement), and allow her to retain the 760m turning circle and 6.5s rudder shift time of her smaller cousin. With such a large but poorly-armored ship, any further changes would probably have to be buffs.


Now here is where I reach a bit of a dilemma. None of the Russian cruisers have anything approaching good concealment, with Chapayev being the closest to it. But at the ranges most of them function at, even the 130mm railguns will start feeling sluggish and underwhelming. While Project 84's superstructure looks very close to that of the modernized Sverdlov (i.e. not the one in WoWS), even that is a towering edifice of a superstructure for a cruiser. Ultimately, I just can't award anything better than Chapayev's 13.24km surface detection range, and Kutuzov's 9.3km air detection range. When specced for full stealth and AA, Slava has about 1.1km between her max AA range and her air detection range, which is a lot, but seeing as Atlanta has about 1.5km I can't see this being too big an issue, especially since Slava's stealth is significantly worse despite the ability to mount CSM1. Having significantly-smaller guns than Chapayev, however, Slava's smoke-firing detection range is lower at 6.26km.
And, of course, the million-dollar question is upon us. Smoke, radar, neither, or both? As she lacks a heal, and I firmly believe that WG's original idea of Kutuzov as a fleet utility vessel could have worked if tweaked properly, the answer is smoke. Slava gets a custom version of smoke similar in nature to Pan-Asian DDs: 2 base charges, 30s emission time, but each cloud lasting just 35 seconds. The clouds last long-enough for you to use them as temporary cover while you wait for your firing bloom to disappear, but not so long as to encourage smoke camping. The 30s emisison time allows you to lay a big-enough screen to cover an allied ship that might need to make a turn or pull out of a bad spot, but is not long-enough to offset the low cloud duration like Perth and Huang He's are.
I'm not even going to consider giving Slava the option to swap smoke for radar. Russian radar is generally balanced by the low salvo count, with none of the current cruisers being able to get more than 3 salvos off without use of Surveillance Radar Mod. 1. Slava obviously doesn't have that issue, and floaty though the 130s may be for a cruiser, they're still far from difficult to hit with inside of radar range. However, as a compensation, and to give her some ability to function as a destroyer hunter, I will give Slava the ability to mount standard T8 hydro (4.44km ship spotting range, 3.12km torpedo spotting range) simultaneously with her DF. The way I see it, if you let her sneak up on you, then you deserved it.
Alright, before we wrap things up, I'll list the options here and current running. I've been taking votes on various Discord servers and the comments on the DDs post so far. Things stand as thus:
  • A full IJN battleship split. Spans T3 to T10, with the existing battlecruisers removed - I have a battlecruiser proposal I'm planning in conjunction, but won't release with, this because I'm still not sure about how I want to do BCs. 2 votes.
  • USN/VMF missile ship sub-branches. Will have a cruiser and destroyer sub-branch from each nation, but not a whole tree. Some ships will be conversions, some will be purpose-built missile ships, tier range from T7 to T10 for now. 2 votes.
  • A separate UK CA line spanning T2 to T10. 2 votes.
  • A dual USN DD split, with two lines that have different emphases being written simultaneously. Likely spanning from at least T6 to T10. 0 votes.
Any votes and feedback on the ships themselves is welcome and appreciated. Thanks for reading again!
submitted by TenguBlade to WorldOfWarships [link] [comments]

WoWs 11: 0.6.3 QnA - READERS DIGEST

Hello there,
since I promised it in yesterdays QnA, here's the "Readers Digest". All Questions that have so far been answered. If Sub_Octavian (or other officials answer more questions I'll add them here. I'll put in Links to the question, so those who are interested can take a look in the comment chain.
META and related:
Question: He mentioned that the way Overwatch balances is by looking at three aspects, players, stats, and internal feedback but rarely these things are aligned so they have to make compromises. How does StPB balance ships? Have you ever had to make compromises regarding a line? It it purely following stats or is it more a feel thing? (In regards to a QnA given by the director of Overwatch) Answer:(/tg) Yes, we had such cases. The director of Overwatch (unsurprisingly, as Blizzard are almost gods of balance, I think) put it absolutely right. These three aspects are always involved, and they often contradict. We, however, have additional issue - our game is based on IRL naval warfare. And despite of numerous conventions and "gameplay first" principle, we cannot act however we wish in balancing. We cannot make BBs purely tanks, cruisers purely support and DDs purely damage dealers, for example. While that would probably make balancing the game much easier, at the same time, that would greatly harm the immersion and historical accuracy, which is quite important for our core audience.
Question: He later went on to mention that their PT isn't accurate for data gathering because players only stick around for one or two matches, does the same thing happen with World of Warships or does the fact that you get live server rewards help people to test more? Answer:(/tg) Again, this is right (although, I wouldn't say that our players do only 2 matches - there are different levels of involvement across the board). PT stats are helpful, but they are not good enough for fine-tuning. The best two things about PT are players feedback (perception of changes) and version polishing (in terms of quality). Rewarding players for PT participation is good practice, I think, but more for adequate player quantity. Engaged and interested players are hardly motivated by the rewards - they want to be ahead of things and care about the project, that's why they participate.
Question: Maps. In World of Tanks, players have the option to select/deselect which battle modes they want to engage in - why can't Warships implement this same system. Many players dislike the Epicenter and Bastion game modes you've experimented with and would prefer to just play Domination. When can we expect a similar option, such as in World of Tanks, to opt out of crappy game modes. Answer:(/tg) Such option is not planned for any future updates. We remove the stuff that is not enjoyable, like Bastion, but not going to split match making
CARRIER and rework:
Question: are tier V CV's getting protected MM where they won't see tier VI CV's ? Answer: No. In any case T-V CV can meet T-VI CV in battle, it will be accompanied by additional friendly T-VI CV and countered by additional T-V enemy CV. While this will indeed increase the difference between T-V and T-VI CVs, such situation will hardly make noticeable impact. But we are aware of this concern, so we will be paying much attention to it. Follow-UP-Question: At the same time you assume that the now hamstrung CV players will not suffer greatly at the hands of those who set up their sealclubbing shop on T6 now? Answer:(/tg) Your argument is made from experienced player POV. Which I respect, but unfortunately, cannot agree with. Sorry, but novice progress in learning the game does not work like that. Yes, we strongly believe that 0.6.3 low tier CV state is better than 0.6.2 low tier CV state.
Question: It has been said by you and others, that this year will be the year of the CV rework. How do you think will the less of manual dropping impact the CV population? Especially if you think about new players that get little to no hint once they progress past T5, that they now have a new tool available (manual drop). Are there any tutorials planned in regards to manual dropping? Answer 1:(/tg) The 0.6.3 CV changes are absolutely not everything we want to do, and it may even not reflect the whole concept we are working on. These changes are done to improve current CV balance. However, we are working on several prototypes that have complete "rework" feel - in terms of AA mechanics, drop mechanics, etc. As any rework is quite stressful for players, we are taking our time to do these prototypes properly, and then they will be tested. So, right now, we don't know for 100% how CVs will change in 2017 - we have several solid ideas that need to be polished and presented to you - the players - for trying. But we are definitly going to work on this class, as we promised. Answer 2:(/tg) Manual drop removal is done mainly to improve low-tier balance and reduce seal-clubbing. Answer 3:(/tg) Tutorials are planned, my team is working on quite an interesting project of tutorials via personal offers, that will even have some flexibility to match player skill level. Right now we're onto some very basic stuff for T-I - III ships, but if we launch it, and it feels good, we will definitely go on with dedicated CV tutorial.
Question: On top of the previous question: I assume if a T5 and a T6 CV are in the same battle (so 2 CVs per team), then the T5 CV can't use manual dropping, while the T6 CV can. Is this assumption correct? Answer:(/tg) Already answered.
Question: Considering the proposed changes to CVs (tier 4/5) and the removal of strafe and manual drops from these tiers, why don't we just move to a +1/-1 matchmaking across the board, rather than a +1/-1 for tiers 1-4 and +2/-2 for tiers 5-10? Answer:(/tg) Because current MM settings work best.
Question: Is there a vision/strategy/grand design for CV balancing? My biggest gripes currently are imbalanced earnings (really hard to get to top XP even with a great game), and poor loadouts of USN CVs compared to IJN CVs. Answer:(/tg) I partly answered here. Loadouts can also be re-evaluated, including USN CVs. As for economy, due to players feedback and stats analysis, we concluded that their earnings were too averaged. We are fixing this in 0.6.3, so epic wins will be bringing larger numbers.
Question: Regarding the removal of alt-fire for CVs at T4/5. I can see why such a decision would be taken - the gap in performance between CV players able to utilise alt-fire and those who aren't is enormous, and given the small amount of AA and lack of Defensive Fire makes manually-dropped torpedoes devastating. Still, learning manual drop is an essential mechanic for CV players, especially at higher tiers, and forcing new CV players to learn it at T6 where they might meet AA monstrosities such as the Cleveland and the Atlanta seems harsh. So, instead of removing such a mechanic from the game, have the devs considered implementing a proper tutorial (as it is right now, the only way players will even find out about alt-fire is through guides or asking on the forums) and increasing T4/5 AA, perhaps giving cruisers Defensive Fire, to make manual drops less devastating? It would teach players better teamplay early on, too. Answer:(/tg) We considered different options. The problem is that you are looking from experienced player perspective. For a novice, the choice between "learn manual drop at T6, when you already learned other CV aspects" or "learn everything at once, with kind CV seal-clubbers to help you around and to delete you" is much..less clear. And you are absolutely right about the need to introdcue much more tutorial aspects to the game. We are working on it.
CLANS and related:
Question: Clan system. When will we see an expansion of the clan system? Limiting clans to only 30 roster slots seems like a money grab, as we've seen several clans now implement successive clan tags. There has been literally zero progress made on the clan system in Warships. Answer:(/tg) I think I mentioned this, but it won't hurt to repeat: clan system will be expanded for sure. Our plan was "socialization - causal clan gameplay - competitive clan gameplay - meta-clan gameplay". The plan is still in action, and we are working on step 2 right now. As for limitation of 30, we are aware that this limit does not accommodate some big established clans, and we are working on solution as well. No money grab intended - that would be quite pointless even from pure business perspective.
Question: Clan battles. Currently, other clans are sponsoring, organizing and running clan competitions and clan battles, because the game does not yet support this feature. When will we see clan battles? Will clan battles follow a similar system as in World of Tanks (that is, tiers 6, 8, and 10) or will Warships have a different tier system? Answer:(/tg) I cannot go into details, but according to our plan I described in the first point, the stuff you are talking about is step 3 and partly 4.
0.6.3 - Stealthfiring:
Question: Do you agree that the suggested fix for stealth firing will disproportionately affects the ships, DDs specifically, that have long gun range and/or are specialized into increasing the range? The scenario I am describing is: Say you are in a DD and fighting another DD at close range. Your gun range is 15km because you took all the skills and modules for range. His support BBs are at 14km. With current mechanics, the BB at 14km will not be spotting you and relying on the DD you are fighting. With new mechanics, the BB will also be spotting you, so if the enemy DD was to smoke up or die... you are still spotted. If you didnt have AFT, you would no longer be spotted. Answer:(/tg) No. I fully understand the scenario you are talking about, but I find it very situational and overestimated. Your after-firing 20s penalty will be cut off if no enemies are in direct LOS - and on most maps, there's lots of terrain around the caps. You also will have smokes available. We'll be monitoring this scenario on PTS to be sure everything works as intended. If you want my personal opinion, as a player, I'm not going to change anything in my builds. My USN, KM and IJN DDs (but for Akizuki) are doing without AFT/range mod, and VMF leaders are built for provoking fire, so they are going with it and rudder shift. Not sure about VMF 2nd branch and whether I can free up 4 points by removing AFT from Akizuki, remembering about her big range buff..we'll see. (Adendum) Sorry, I put it wrong: the penalty itself stays, but if no one sees you in LOS, you won't be detected through terrain or smokes.
Question: Wargaming seems to have a long standing (unwritten) rule of not engaging in massive nerfs to premium vehicles (ships/tanks) - and yet the discussed changes to "stealth firing" will do exactly that to several premium ships in the game (Gremy/Blyskawica/Kutuzov, etc). How will Wargaming provide compensation for these drastic changes, as the ships will no longer be what was advertised when we purchased, in accordance with the EU Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices. Answer:(/tg) There will be no compensation upon 0.6.3 changes. All battle specs remain the same, it is the game mechanics that is changed, and making it influence only researchable ships would be absolutely unfair. Additionally, I don't remember any premium shop description that involves stealth firing (although I am not checking them all on all regions). And finally, I don't recomment going this way, because we always care for premiums so they are competitive and buff them directly when it is needed. Without sticking to this "you bought exactly what you bought" idea. If we revert all positive changes to all premium ships, I guess, many of them will become much less enjoyable, with formal "we did not change a thing" being true. Stealth firing is an option which is utilized with certain commander skills and modernizations. For this part, free respecs/demounts will be introduced in 0.6.3. P.S. If any ship, including premium, will become unplayable in 0.6.3, it will be tuned in 0.6.4. Having lots of good ships in game is the mutual interest of players and developers. Edit: Sorry, I put it wrong: the penalty itself stays, but if no one sees you in LOS, you won't be detected through terrain or smokes.
Question: If the stealth firing change goes through in its current form, are there any plans to introduce modules or skills that lower your gun range? Answer:(/tg) No plans for that.
Question: In your opinion, doesn't the decision to get rid of stealth firing contradict WG's official we don't nerf premiums stance? If the answer is no, then why? Stealthfiring was definitely a major selling point for some premium ships. Answer:(/tg) - We don't have such official stance. Officially, we have EULA, but I'm not doing legal service, I'm more into game design and community interaction. And here, we always work so that all players spendings do not lose their value. This is why premium ships are buffed just like regular ones when needed, but on the other hand are not nerfed. - Stealthfiring cannot be major selling point, because we never ever balanced any ship around it. That would be stupid to balance the ship around quite unfun and marginal tactics (sorry, stealth-firing-guys). - 0.6.3 changes are not individual nerfs/buffs, but mechanics rework. - The answer is no. - If any ship will become unplayable because of changes (which is really, really low chance - there's whole world of opportunities to play without open-water invisible firing), it will be tweaked and buffed ASAP. Because the idea of SF removal is to "buff" the whole game, not to ruin things and to bring down the sky
Question: Removal of stealth fire. It's safe to say that this is a decision that has been very hotly contested, and I will try not to repeat any points that (to my knowledge) have already been answered. To my mind, stealth fire in general was troubling only in very specific situations and most ships had to make tradeoffs for this ability. IJN DDs (barring Akizuki) have awful DPM, not making their stealth firing too much of a problem. USN DDs have it slightly better, but at the ranges they can stealth fire at, their low shell velocity leads to enormous lead times, making hitting anything but the largest and slowest battleships consistently near-impossible. Russian destroyers had their post-fire detection bloom nerfed specifically to make stealth-firing more difficult (excepting Gremyashchy) and the German destroyers infamously had such a change made to them pre-emptively. So, that leaves the number of the worst abusers of stealth fire at 4, unless I missed some: Zao, Blyskawica, Gremyashchy, Akizuki. What was the thought behind removing stealth fire globally rather than nerfing these specific ships? Answer:(/tg) Because we were not going to nerf a specific ship, rather to exclude the mechanics, which in our opinion, is bad for the game in general. P.S. There were also some very hotly contested topics before, like RPF, bad skill tree, UK cruisers and German BBs being bad, etc. Sometimes, players concerns prove to be justified, sometimes - not. Not everything we say is always right. Not everything Redditors/hardcore players say is always right. However, the decision and, what's important, the responsibility, will be ours.
Question: Regarding the "compensation" buffs we are getting in 0.6.3 in return for the removal of stealth fire, which near-exclusively seem to be firing range buffs. Have Wargaming considered that with the way the new system is projected to work (detection range after firing = maximum firing range), increasing a ship's maximum firing range is actually something of a nerf, especially for the reliant-on-stealth IJN destroyers? Answer:(/tg) No, we don't consider this to be a nerf. To call it a nerf is very close to fact-twisting.
Question: What's the status of cruisers? Recently my random battles are finally 90% of the time with 5 BBs on each side, going as low as 1 cruiser per team. This is really bad for the game, and the recent removal of stealthfire mostly benefited BBs. Answer:(/tg) The removal of SF should benefit the whole game, not BBs. As for the actual effect, I don't think you are time traveller (neither am I) so I guess we should not jump to such conclusions. BBs are popular, sometimes too much, and there are other things in class balance/popularity we are changing slowly, but there is no cruiser extinction.
Question: Specifically about Akizuki and Gremyashchy, who will be hit hard by the stealth fire nerfs. About Akizuki, have the devs considered that with no longer being able to stealth fire, her weaknesses will likely cause her performance to plummet like a rock? She is slow (she can be outpaced by some battleships in her matchmaking spread!), fat (leading to horrifyingly large penetrations from high-calibre guns) and turns like a brick (making her less able to dodge incoming fire, compounding the above problems). Has buffing her agility instead of "buffing" her firing range been considered in light of the stealth fire changes? As for Gremyashchy, with no longer being able to stealth fire and thus the removal of its most infamous strength, will it be made available for purchase again? I greatly enjoyed her sister, the Gnevny, when I was grinding her at T5 and would love having a Gremy in my port as a player who only fairly recently started playing. Answer:(/tg) If Akizuki, Gremy, or any other ships performance will "plummet like a rock" (which may also NOT happen, because, you know, we are not nerfing them to oblivion, as some players think), we will surely fix them ASAP. Again, the change of mechanics is designed to improve the gameplay overall, not to destroy particular ship. So, any bad side effect will be fixed. We love and play Akizuki, too:)
FRENCH and other cruisers:
Question: I am concerned about Henri IV, the TX French cruiser, because of the leaked stats. I know you can't confirm or deny and don't want to discuss leaks, but is there anything you can say so we are not worried so much? Answer:(/tg) Viva la France! (<--BEST ANSWER SO FAR)
Question: What was the reason for giving French cruisers faster reverse/deceleration? Even before this announcement, the forums were already ripe with bad jokes about the French retreating/reversing/hissing the white flag. I'm quite surprised that WG is now further fuelling this bad stereotype by making it part of the national flavour. Answer:(/tg) Uh-oh, I guess people often see what they want to see:( Sorry, but no jokes intended. French cruiser are going to be quite fast, but they won't have fast rudder shift. Extra power to reverse will give them more chance to park off an unfortunate island or any other collision. This is it.
Question: Will high tier IJN CAs get some special consumable? Right now, they are pretty bland and don't offer any thing to the team. RN has smoke+sonar, USN/VMF has radar, KM has uber sonar. Their lack of capability to push smoke effectively makes them to stay at the back and not utilise their stealth better and play the objective. I am not saying Zao needs a buff but it is nice to have comsumables to help you when you want to push an objective. Answer:(/tg) "Consumable flavour" is a nice and obviously efficient thing, but it is not the only way of influencing game process. IJN CAs are notorious for their uber-HE shells, and they have situational, but powerful torpedoes. And quite well-protected layout. They really don't need to sit back and can be played with risk. Right now we don't see any argumented need to add IJN-cruiser-specific consumable.
Question: how did the latest USN CA ROF buffs turn out in your view? Was it enough to get them on par with the other nations? (I liked them, but they performed subpar in the past). Answer:(/tg) Quite enough. Nice to see the stats and positive attitude towards these ships growing. Maybe we will do more a bit later; now we keep looking at their performance.
DDs - state of IJN:
Question: What's the status of IJN DDs? I know you're looking into them, but I am also worried since you introduced a "well deserved buff" in 0.6.3 to Yugumo and Shima, which isn't really a 100% buff considering the new concealment mechanics, so I am just hoping you're not done with them. Answer:(/tg) The status is that we will keep researching them with 0.6.3 changes. I cannot confirm that range upgrade is not 100% buff. It stacks well with their low profile, good arcs and HEs, low comfort in CQC and long torpedoes. Whether further buffs are needed is to be determined.
Question: Why does Gearing get 16.5 km torps? Why are Fletcher and gearing torps so much better than Shimas-resulting in similar torp damage (because Gearing and Fletcher torps are so much more likely to hit) despite Shima having so much more torp capacity and dmg. Answer:(/tg) Gearing torps are really good, especially with torpedo acceleration skill, but I don't support the opinion that IJN torpedoes are worse. We may stare at their specs and discuss them, but in the end, IJN DDs do more damage with their torps. Their alpha, speed and flooding chance compensate their higher detectability. And while Gearing shreds things in CQC with her RoF, high tier IJN DD who knows about her guns (which many IJN DD players forget, unfortunately), shreds things from range due to powerful HE and nice arcs. I'm not saying everything is perfect, and no buffs are considered after 0.6.3, but for now, we need to see how things change.
Question: Hi! Is there any news about IJN DDs? Few months ago you said they get overview but nothing new since then. They seriously need some fixing, a better turret turn speed or decrease their torpedo detection ranges. Fletcher and Gearing being a better torpedoboat then a torpedo focused line while they also having superior guns is seriously not right. Average players learnt how to dodge torps, especally IJN torps with terrible detection range, they also struggle to fight back with guns because even with skill and equipment their turrets turn too slow. If you dodge shells, can't fire back because of slow turrets, if don't dodge but fire back the enemy just wrecks you. Answer:(/tg) - There was flooding damage buff, that increases their damage output against large ships. - There is firing range buff for most of them coming in 0.6.3. - Other tweaks may be introduced later. - Sorry to ruin it, but Gearing and Fletcher are not better torpedo boats. They are definitely good, though. - IJN DDs have pros and cons. Right now, we see that if played to their pros, they are showing very good results - I don't mean IMO here, I mean server stats. However, we would be happy to meet the community concerns and make these ships more enjoyable without over-buffing them. So we keep working.
Question: simply question IJN DDs sub branch, it continue or stop? if continue then how long? Answer:(/tg) We would definitely like it to continue, ideally, with the ships/projects similar to Akizuki. No ETA yet, unfortunately.
Question: will the Shinonome also get a firing range update like many other IJN? I didn't see it in the 0.6.3 notes. Answer:(/tg) We are considering it.
MISCELLANEOUS (WG EU, standard battle, ranked progression,...):
Question: {... Foul language ...} For example the christmas convoy missions which we wouldn't have gotten, repeating missions where in EU you have to get 2 Krakens and a separate double strike to complete the final stage of a mission? If the community wouldn't be actice we would get [edited]all compared to the NA server where WG staff seem to actually care about their community. Answer:(/tg) Hi. I suggest you don't use that kind of language in Q&As. I am not trying to tell you what to do, but really, that won't contribute to communication. Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question, as events & missions are completely out of my area of work. I will try to find someone who can talk about it, and summon here. Cheers!
Question: Is there anything in the works regarding changes to the way progression occurs in ranked battles to make ranking out less frustrating? Some of my thoughts include awarding stars to top 7 players of both teams and losing a star requires 2 consecutive losses. What are your thought on adding cyclones to ranked games? Will you be reintroducing the old rewards for future seasons of ranked? Answer:(/tg) We are planning big research upon current season end. So right now, I'm more interested in asking right questions and analyzing the data, then giving answers. It is too early to speak about RB in detail. If you receive the survey, be sure to complete it. Thanks!
Question: Is there any plan to either remove or modify how standard battles work, as at the moment, especially at high tiers, they promote base camping and very passive/selfish gameplay, whereas a domination game is much better, as it encourages and rewards teamwork and more aggressive gameplay. Also, the xp rewards for a standard battle are much lower on average than domination games, is this by design, has this been noticed? Answer:(/tg) I personally can agree with your point. I love Domination so much more than SB. However, LOTS of players have different opinion, and removing this mode would upset them significantly. I'm speaking with confidence, because the matter was researched specifically:( This is why we lowered the presense of this mode but did not remove it.
Question: Lastly, I believe Wargaming have stated that the battleship overpopulation (40% and rising) is a problem. Yet, why does seemingly every recent change, barring two minor ones (reduction of catapult fighter uptime, Bismarck hydro nerf - but only specifically Bismarck) seem to run counter to this goal? AA buffs, the new skill tree in general, Radio Location specifically, and now the removal of stealth fire... the dev team's actions seem to run counter to their stated goal, and that may be why many people are upset. Answer:(/tg) Have you seen many BBs with RPF? Because we don't see them at all. Why have you excluded flooding damage buff, which now causes BBs to melt with unrepaired leak? Sorry, but I don't see any objective approach here, so the question itself is not correct. Thus, I am not sure I can answer it.
Question: Since you are lowering the citadel of Iowa, will Izumo going to get some love as well? Answer:(/tg) We are not lowering Iowa citadel. We're lowering (most likely, if testing goes good) Alabama citadel in and testing the same change for Iowa/Missouri/Montana for 0.6.4. There are no buff plans for Izumo currently. Sorry.
I'll left out any comments in this digest. So just Question and Phils answers. If you miss sth pls point it out and I'll add it.
And reddit formatting screwed me over once again...
submitted by Vectoranalysis to WorldOfWarships [link] [comments]

Buyers Beware: Perth (and a short word on 0.5.14)

Other instalments

Tachibana | Diana/Aurora | Emden | (GNB) Albany | (GNB) Katori | Campbeltown | (Limited) Yūbari | Ishizuchi | (Limited) Sims | Tirpitz | Arizona | Saipan | Krasnyi Krym | Omaha/Murmansk/Marblehead | Texas | Scharnhorst | Gneisenau | Leningrad | Belfast
Not all of these are quite up to current standard yet, but I plan on updating them soon!
[14-11-2016 16:35:00] Lulu: h
[14-11-2016 16:35:01] Lulu: oh*
[14-11-2016 16:35:04] Lulu: eh
[14-11-2016 16:36:02] Mr Twisty: kek
[14-11-2016 17:17:56] Lulu: faf
[14-11-2016 17:18:59] Mr Twisty: fef me
godzilla5549 is a hero and bought me Perv. <3
Anyway this moving smoke cloud is basically a Leander but it's not really, butttt I liked Leander a lot so I also kind of like Perth. Woo!
Scroll down for the datamining stuff.

The bad stuff

  • Perth is a Royal Navy cruiser. In fact, it's a modified Leander class (two smokestacks as opposed to one), and, well, this implies a lot of bad things.

Primary armament

  • It's a cruiser, so... Just like I said in the Belfast guide, she does not have anything equating to overwhelming firepower. In fact, it's even more underwhelming than Belfast's, because Belfast gets twelve guns and Perv gets eight. That's 8. 8 guns. They're all 6''.
  • ALSO it's the SAME SHELLS AS BELFAST GETS. Perv gets HE, but that also means she doesn't get the hilarious AP the tech tree ships get (I guess the Australians did away with that in favour of setting things on fire? Don't you think their country is hot enough already?)
  • But yeah she just gets some regular 6'' AP that's not particularly stellar or amazing or whatever.
  • This also means her shells have USN-like arcs. It's a British-made ship, and, well, Britain is the US' pappy, so it's not surprising they have beautiful rainbow arcs.
  • Her range is fucking anemic, at 12.8km. This is a serious detriment to a really squishy ship, but I guess Australians just want to get in and BRAWL. FUCK. THAT'S METAL. THIS SHOULD BE A PLUS.

Secondary armament

  • Perv's AA sucks ass. It's as simple as that. It's garbage.
  • Okay, a little more detail: her AA suite is anemic, consisting of some quad machine gun mounts that have shit DPS and absolutely no range, two Oerlikons, and a bunch of 4'' DP mounts. The DP mounts have range but shit DPS, the Oerlikons and machine guns have both shit DPS and range. Her AA absolutely cannot be relied on.
  • Perv also can't jumpscare pilots by hitting her mighty T button of scariness, because she doesn't get Defensive Fire.
  • I'm going to do a little twist for once: I think horsememes' dick would be more effective at shooting down planes than perv (by giving the pilots laughing fits, if you'll let me reuse that joke). It's that bad.


  • Ahahahahahahah.
  • Perv gets 13mm of plating protecting most of the ship, Wanna know what 13mm of armour bounces? 180mm shells and under, which means every heavy cruiser and battleship in the game can smack you around through your bow.
  • There's a very tiny strip of 100mm of armour protecting her citadel, which... Would stop incoming fire when angled if it wasn't for the shit 13mm plating and the anemic 37mm citadel bulkhead protecting it from incoming longitudinal fire.
  • Oh baby.
  • Also, unlike British ships, she does not get a repair party, so any health lost is gone. Permanently. Perv's crew is too busy fighting off kangaroos and emus and whatever demonic creatures live in the Land Down Under to repair their ship.
  • Oh yeah her citadel extends up to her weather deck amidships ahah fuck.
  • Aaaaand to top it all off, she has an extremely shallow health pool, at a piss poor 27100 health.
  • We'll get to her smoke later, but I'll spoil something: it has excessively long duration, which also means she can't poop out smoke quite as much because of the short individual puff duration, giving her a longer cycle time until she can smoke up again (in other words, longer smoke downtime).


  • Not good. Not bad, either, but not good.
  • She's not really all that fast, at only 32.5 knots, a far cry from the speeds some Japanese and Russian cruisers can hit.
  • She thicc. Like most RN cruisers, she takes ages to lose speed, which, uh, doesn't help with not fucking smashing into islands.
  • She gets the cartoon turning physics. While not a bad thing per se, wiggling your rudder to slow down is only marginally effective, and it causes you to pull off some sick accidental Initial D reenactments when performing hard turns sometimes... Which can end you if you're dodging torpedoes.

Miscellaneous stuff

  • It's tier 6, and because tier 4 gets protected matchmaking, she gets uptiered all to fuck most of the time, with tier 8 matches being frustratingly common.
  • This is actually a pretty serious con for the ship; she just melts under any kind of incoming fire from shit like FUCKING NORTH CAROLINAS, especially with her piss poor range (but remember, borked t5/6 mm is not problem, tovarisch - lesta)
  • It's Australian, or ''Commonwealth'', or basically the bin every British Empire country goes in that isn't England! I'm neutral on splitting the lines this way, but a serious con is that you can't put your British commanders on an Australian ship and vice versa. Apparently those British officers want nothing to do with these kangaroo-riding ruffians living on a glorified prison island, the posh twats.
  • No seriously you need a dedicated captain for it and it sucks ass.
  • It falls just short of the tier 7 sweetspot. This also means it's kind of a subpar choice for moneymaking because tier 6 ships inherently make less dosh.
  • Perth is just such a fucking annoying name to pronounce and it always sounds like ''Perv'' when my Dutch ass tries to pronounce it.
I mean, it's not all bad, right?

The good stuff

Primary armament

  • 2100 alpha and 9% base fire chance on her HE shells, oh my! Maybe not the punchiest, but certainly not bad.
  • It's not the funky cartoon physics RN CL AP, but her AP does 3100 damage and can end broadside cruisers very quickly...
  • ... Especially given she has a 7.5s reload time, just like Belfast, so she can spew a pretty nasty amount of shells.

Secondary armament

  • There's actually some good stuff here!
  • While they do jack shit to keep Perv safe from planes, the 4'' guns aren't all that bad as secondary guns, with passable base range, a quick reload time and 6% fire chance. I'd never, ever suggest relying on these for extra damage, but the occasional extra fires and incaps come in handy when knife fighting.
  • Where Perv's secondary armament shines, though, is in her torpedoes.
  • Perv sports a single quad-tube mount on each broadside, with great firing angles, and like other Royal Navy ships, she can fire her torpedoes one by one in a single spread... Which is an incredible asset, letting you create more intricate launch patterns to guarantee a hit.
  • The torpedoes themselves are pretty potent weapons, with 8km max range, 61 knots of speed, and 15433 base damage. While not stellar, these torpedoes can be great weapons when tactfully combined with the single fire torps.
  • Also having torpedoes is great because ''Perv's long hard rods''. Ahahahah. Quality poster!


  • I was debating leaving this out just to drive the point home, but Perv has two assets that can save her hide.
  • First off, her base concealment with her permoflage is 9.8km, which is pretty great for a cruiser. She's not a stealth firing monster, but her stealth is good enough to let her disengage when things get hairy.
  • Perv's true asset in the art of not getting hit, however, is her smoke generator. It's not the regular short-puffing, long-lasting RN smoke; it's a long-puffing, short-lasting dank smoke generator. I have no idea how popular ganja is Australia, but if Perv is anything to go by, it's pretty popular.
  • No, seriously, Perth's weed generator lasts ninety seconds. That's a minute and a half The smoke itself lasts only 10 seconds, so it's of dubious usefulness for your team (no BBs camping in your smoke), but for you, it's literally a portable smoke cloud.
  • This needs a third point. Perth can sit in smoke for a minute and a half. If needed, she can slowly creep along and take her smoke cloud with her, giving her a lot more flexibility than other ships that rely on smoke to not get their shit pushed in. This is also the ship's main gimmick.


  • Her rudder shift is a fairly average 7.6 seconds.
  • Where Perv shines, though, is in getting through turns. She combines a pretty short turning circle of 640 meters with cartoon RN CL turning physics, which means she only loses speed during the initial part of the turn, then rockets through it while accelerating back to full speed, which means she often dodges fire better than her peers.
  • I'm also pretty sure she gets the cartoony acceleration that lets her rocket away like a fucking drag racer. She must be from Bathurst because she sure does love races/going fast.

Miscellaneous stuff

  • Again, smoke on a cruiser. Pretty huge.
  • She also doesn't have to pick between a catapult plane and smoke, unlike tech tree RN cruisers, which makes her AA very slightly less anemic with the catapult fighter (and why would you use the spotter?)
  • SPEAKING OF THE DUMB PLANE I DIDN'T INITIALLY NOTICE THIS BECAUSE THEY GET SHOT DOWN SO MUCH but for some reason Perv's catapult fighter stays up for SIX MINUTES while the spotter stays up for THREE. Extra range/spotting/XP for the enemy CV!
  • She gets hydro. Big whoop.
  • I mean, it's Australian, and anything Australian is inherently funny/cool, especially the accents. This is a definite pro. Fuck yeah, Australia.
  • I think the twin funnels look better than the weird trunked one on the regular Leander class. Bite me.
  • Usual premium ship bonuses: more XP, more credits, yada yada yada
  • The permoflage looks kind of simple and gnarly and I really like it.
  • Something about value: Perth is quite cheap, at about €20 for just the ship and a slot on EU. I don't know if it's worth it, but you're not getting extorted for the only Australian ship currently in the game, or a fun little gimmick or whatever. If they unfuck T6 MM, it's definitely good value.

The history stuff

  • Perth was originally commissioned into the Royal Navy as HMS Amphion, as a modified Leander-class cruiser, with segregated machinery rooms (hence the split funnels) that made her more capable of surviving incoming fire.
  • A real world traveler, Amphion saw service in the Caribbean, Atlantic and Pacific before being sold to the Royal Australian Navy and was renamed HMAS Perth.
  • Perth's crew promptly mutinied while the ship was docked in New York because fucking Australia, man.
  • Perth's journey home was interrupted by an entire world war; she was still stuck in the Caribbean when WW2 started, and spent some time as a raider there before finally transiting to the Pacific and arriving in home waters.
  • Perth spent most of her career between messing around in the Mediterranean and escorting convoys in home waters; she was bombed once in the meantime, too, while floating around in the Aegean, a station she had been assigned to in order to assist in the evacuation of Allied troops from Greece.
  • She spent her time babysitting convoys until 1942, when she was deployed to ABDA forces to replace HMAS Canberra. She spent her time escorting convoys while the Japanese thundered across the Pacific.
  • Her final assignment came when an ABDA task force sailed to meet a reported Japanese convoy, the buildup to the Battle of the Java Sea. Perth survived ABDA's ill-fated mission, proving herself a formidable force by managing to score hits on several Japanese ships during the string of engagements. She and Northampton-class cruiser USS Houston were the only heavy ABDA ships to survive the battle relatively unscathed, with the Dutch cruisers sunk and HMS Exeter badly damaged.
  • Houston and Perth left the battle scene and attempted to resupply; they were confronted with a lack of spare fuel and shells at the base they docked at, and were ordered to sail through Sunda Strait with meager fuel provisions and no extra shells, being left with whatever they hadn't yet expended in the Java Sea engagement.
  • An hour to midnight, Perth engaged a Japanese destroyer, and both Allied cruisers were promptly surrounded. At midnight, Perth attempted to force her way through, and was promptly speared by four torpedoes, sinking on the night of March 1, 1942, just past midnight, taking about half her ship's company with her to the bottom of Sunda Strait.

In summary

Perth is a gimmicky little cruiser.
She's a bit like a Leander with HE, but without the weird AP, I guess. So-so guns, whacky cartoon mobility, piss poor armour and decent concealment make her a challenge to play, especially with the lack of a repair party; in return, she gets a long-lasting smoke generator that gives her great tactical options and an escape mechanism when things get too hot, with her full complement of shells and her great torpedoes giving her a lot of ways to hurt people. Just watch out for planes.
tl;dr Leander-class without weird AP, with HE, equipped with a portable smoke cloud lasting a minute and a half

The numbers

For the truly lazy among us, I will arbitrarily rate aspects of the ship, with no particular logic behind these numbers but my own gut feeling after marathoning this ship. Take these for what they are, and try not to base your purchase off of these. These numbers grade the ship mostly compared to its peers, which is why you'll probably start seeing some cruisers pull mobility ratings similar to battleships.
  • Primary armament: 7/10
  • Secondary armament: 7/10
  • Anti-air: 3/10
  • Durability: 6.5/10
  • Mobility: 8/10
  • Economics: 5/10
  • Difficulty: 5/10
  • Fun: 7/10
Overall: 6/10 (Difficulty is reversed compared to the others, where a lower-rated ship is more difficult to play, so the average doesn't get whacky)

Should you buy her?

  • If you're looking for a good ship: no. Perv is so gimped by the shitty MM and the lack of a repair party I just can't really call her ''good'', certainly not as good as some of the offerings found only a tier higher. She's okay, but... No, not good enough to justify getting her.
  • If you're looking for an XP/credit grinder: I suppose. Perth is a premium ship, so it makes decent moolah, but it's also at tier 6, so... Lower tier, gimped MM. It's a maybe.
  • If you're looking for a captain trainer: at the time of writing, Perth is the only Australian ship in the game. Haha no. If you're looking for something silly and/or fun: absolutely. Perth's ridiculous smoke generator is a hilarious little gimmick, and the high octane, every-shot-could-be-your-last playstyle is loads of fun (to me). It's up to taste, mostly, but the gimmicky smoke generator is undeniably a lot of fun to play around with.
  • If you're looking for a challenge: sure. She has a unique gimmick, and being a Leander without a repair party, she's inherently challenging but not broken. Effectively using the smoke generator is an interesting challenge, too.
  • If you're looking for something historically significant: are you Australian? Then yes! Otherwise, I'm not so sure; the battle of Sunda Strait is an amazing (and heartwrenching) tale of two hopelessly outnumbered warships putting up a fight anyway, and this would absolutely justify Perth (and USS Houston, hint hint) for me, but it might not justify it to you.
Her smoke is useless to the team and she offers no other utility like better hydro, radar or DFAA, and is a quite inferior pick compared to Cleveland and Budyonny, so not even once.

Builder's short guide to: Perth

I see tons of threads popping up asking for build advice for ''ship X'', and people have requested that I start including build tips in these guides, so here we go.


There's a few interesting options to play around with, and since you need a dedicated captain, you might as well play around with them.
  • Expert LoadeBasics of Survivability: BoS is a one-size-fits-all kinda deal, but Expert Loader might be useful when you get the drop on a broadside cruiser from stealth and your smoke isn't up. ymmv, both are a bit subpar on Perth.
  • Expert Marksman/Torpedo Armament Expert: Expert Marksman is the go-to tier 2 skill. Faster turrets = faster shootbang, and faster shootbang is always better. However, Perth has good torpedo armament, and with the single fire torps being the way they are, TAE is actually pretty decent on Perth.
  • Superintendent/Vigilance: for a ship relying on a portable smoke cloud, Vigilance is great for not getting shit on by torpedoes being spammed at your portable torp magnet. Superintendent gives you extra weed generator, to quote a wise man, so both skills are pretty good.
  • Demolition Expert/Survivability Expert: Perth has like, no HP, so Everything Counts (it's not even the Belfast guide!) when it comes to HP; SE is an okay pick. However, DE bumps up her fire chance by 3%, and in my opinion the extra fires are just too good to pass up (plus making baBBies cry is fun).
  • Concealment Expert: standard cruiser fare. You get seen less, so you get shit on less too.
  • Whatever tier 2/3 skill you didn't pick: less torp bullshittery/extra weed generator. Alternatively, you can pass one of the two for EM/TAE. Idk mang this is such a huge tossup I can't tell you what to do. Follow your heart.


These are called modernisations in the client, and I practically live in the client, so fuck you I'm calling them modernisations. With an S, because I'm European and British English is more common where I live.
  • Slot 1: Main Armaments Modification 1
Guns are life, also torps are pretty lifey too. Absolute no-brainer.
  • Slot 2: Aiming Systems Modification 1 (but honestly they're all shit)
ASM1 gives you a negligible accuracy bonus (ah, my old noob trap nemesis returns) and also passively boosts your secondary range and your torp tube reload speed and honestly, that's why I recommended it.
If you feel like doing something fucking dumb, get Secondary Battery Modification 2 for 6km secondaries on a cruiser.
  • Slot 3: take whatever
If you're getting ruddered or engined a lot, just take their respective mods. Otherwise, just take damage control. They all kind of suck, honestly.
  • Slot 4: Steering Gears Modification 2
Better turning is great on a cruiser but also, why the fuck would you ever take the damage control mod on a fucking cruiser?
What a guide, I guess.
The bit on the captain/nation split is a joke. Don't get your panties in a twist, please.
Short bit on datamining: 0.5.14 was such a miniscule patch, data-wise, there was nothing to document; I prefer not to make separate threads for that because of reasons I won't explain (I initially did, right here, but idk man it's not worth it).
Anyway, there were no undocumented changes between 0.5.13 and 0.5.14 live builds, bar the new flags and some very minute armour model changes that you should never notice, as well as some more work on IJN DDs that I won't document because I don't document shit that's being playtested.
In light of recent leaks, I feel the need to tell y'all that


Thank you for your attention.
No giveaways, again! I know, it's terrible, and I really want to do another one, but I'm just in a shitty financial situation right now and can't afford to give anything away. Forgive me.
Uhh I have nothing to really talk about this time. I'm still busy, I'm still feeling sick, but I'm alive and that's what counts, I guess!
Oh, before we wrap it up, USS Houston when, WG?
Thank you for reading! If there's typos, grammar fuckery or any formatting fuckups, poke me and I'll fix it asap. <3
Constructive criticism and suggestions welcome in PMs! That way I'm sure to see them in time. Thank you!
submitted by Vaexa to WorldOfWarships [link] [comments]

Complete 0.5.2 patch notes (text) for those at work or elsewhere...

New Maps & Signal Flags - Update 0.5.2 Arrives! Today 3,433 New maps, new Signal Flags, permanent Camouflage, and a boatload of game balances and improvements. Update 0.5.2 is set to launch! We covered most of the big stuff in our latest Developer Bulletin, but here's your chance to dig into the details via the full update notes below! The update is scheduled for December 22 at 03:00-05:00 PT (06:00-08:00 ET) during which the game server will be offline.
Update Notes 0.5.2
New Features
Two New Maps
New Signals
New Achievement: "Kraken Unleashed"
Ship Rebalancing
Karma System
Improved Port and Commander Management
Permanent Camouflage
"Arpeggio" Comes to World of Warships
"Mini Client" Trial
Significant Economy Changes
Game Maps and Modes
New Map: The Atlantic
• A large-sized map
• Game modes: Domination with three key areas and Domination with two key areas
• Battle tiers: IX-X
New Map: Shatter
• Also large-sized
• Game modes: Domination with three key areas and Domination with two key areas
• Battle tiers: IX-X
Maps visually improved and tweaked for better gameplay:
• Islands
• Strait
• Fault Line
• Two Brothers
• Northern Lights
• Land of Fire
• Trap
• Islands of Ice
Modes/settings updated for the matchmaker:
• Added tournament scenarios for New Dawn, Fault Line, North, Strait, Land of Fire and Ocean
• "Zone" mode is disabled on Ocean, Islands of Ice and Trap
• "Encounter Battle" mode is disabled on all maps
• Solomon Islands map to be limited to tiers II-V (was II-VI)
• Fault Line limited to tiers V-VII (was V-VIII)
• Re-adjusted the randomization priorities for maps and modes in the PvE mode. From now on, they will completely coincide with each other
New Signals
"Zulu Hotel"
• Achievement: Confederate
• +50% commander experience per battle
"Victor Lima"
• Achievement: Witherer
• + 1% chance to cause fire by bombs and shells of caliber over 160 mm
• +0.5% chance to cause fire by shells of caliber less 160 mm
• +4% chance to cause flooding
"Papa Papa"
• Achievement: Solo Warrior
• +300% free experience per battle
"November Foxtrot"
• Achievement: High Caliber
• 5% consumables preparation time
"November Echo Setteseven"
• Achievement: Clear Sky
• + 10% AA efficiency
• + 10% efficiency of the defensive armament of aircraft's rear gunners
"Juliet Whiskey Unaone"
• Achievement: Liquidator
• +15% chance to cause flooding
• +5% chance to detonate the magazine (of your own ship, disadvantageous)
"India X-Ray"
• Achievement: Arsonist
• + 1% chance to cause fire by bombs and shells of caliber over 160 mm
• +0.5% chance to cause fire by shells of caliber less 160 mm
• +5% chance to detonate the magazine (of your own ship, disadvantageous)
New Achievement: "Kraken Unleashed"
• Granted for destroying five or more enemy ships in one battle. Rewards the "Equal Speed Charlie London" signal (+50% XP per battle). (Previously rewrded for "Confederate" achievement)
Ships Rebalancing
General Changes:
• Japanese aerial torpedoes: recalculated the drop distance in automatic mode; torpedo planes will not run in at a distance that is 15% closer to the target. The torpedo cone for this mode of attack at the intended point of intersection with the target is increased by 14%
• Implemented a converging cone for torpedoes launched from Japanese carriers in the manual mode
• Increased the efficiency of alternative attacks for all U.S.A. and Japanese fighters by 66%. During an alternative attack, the speed of flight is increased by 15-21 knots depending on the plane
• Increased the return speed of U.S. and Japanese offensive aircraft (after dropping bomb loads) by 15-21 knots depending on the plane
• Reduced the detectability range of ship-launched torpedoes by 100 m to 500 m, depending on the type of torpedo. For higher tiers, the reduction of the torpedo detectability range is greater
• Reduced the maneuverability for ships with displacement exceeding 35,000 tons
• AA armament now has consistent statistics across all ships and classes
• Premium consumables will receive one additional charge
• In case of a through-and-through penetration to the main battery turret, the ship will suffer damage as well
• On cruisers, the "Repair Party" consumable may restore up to 33% of damage to the citadel
German Ships:
• German cruisers Kolberg, Königsberg and Nürnberg: armor slopes are now taken into account in the calculation of protection for the engine and magazine, when hit by HE shell fragments. The probability of damage to the engine room from shells with a caliber below 6 inches (150 mm) or less is reduced to zero
• Karlsruhe cruiser: the main battery reload time was decreased from 8.57 to 6.5 seconds
• Karlsruhe cruiser: the traversing angles for the front turrets (towards the opposite ship side) were changed from 25 degrees to 70 degrees
• Yorck cruiser: turrets' full rotation time was decreased from 51.4 to 34.6 seconds
• Hindenburg cruiser: anti-torpedo protection ratios were recalculated
Japanese Ships:
• Hashidate cruiser: full damage from an HE shell was reduced from 2,100 to 1,800
• Zao cruiser: the number of the ship's hit points (HP) was reduced from 44,900 to 40,800
US Ships:
• Erie, Chester cruisers: casemate coating was extended from 13 mm to 22 mm
• Hit points for the Nicholas destroyer were redistributed. 15% of the ship's HP was redistributed from bow to stern. The firing accuracy of Hull B guns was slightly improved
• Nicholas destroyer, the option to research artillery guns was removed. From now on, artillery guns will change along with the research of the ship's hull: the 127 mm/51 Мк7 gun was replaced with the 127 mm/38 Мк21 gun with no option to mount the top gun on the stock hull
Players who have already researched the artillery gun module on Nicholas, will receive a compensation of 2,500 XP points for the ship, while those who researched and mounted the module on Nicholas will get 2,500 XP points and 210,000 Credits. If a player researched the artillery gun module and mounted it, but later decided to exchange it for the stock guns, that player will also receive the same 2,500 XP for the ship and 210,000 Credits while the ship will get the guns associated with the hull being used.
• Benson destroyer: Hull B was modified. During research, the main gun turret is not removed while the number of hit points (HP) was increased from 12,800 to 15,400. The AA defense mounts were modified: the integral values were increased from 19 to 20 points
• Pensacola cruiser: number of guns on Hull A was increased from 8 to 10
• Omaha cruiser: bug related to torpedo cameras was fixed
Russian/Soviet Ships:
• Kiev destroyer: the number of hit points (HP) was reduced by 3,000
• Damage from the HE shells of B2LM guns was reduced from 1,900 to 1,600; the chances of causing fire were reduced from 9% to 7%. These changes were made in respect of the following ships: Gnevny, Ognevoi, Kiev, Tashkent and Udaloi
The visual display of the aiming spread for fighters and torpedo carriers has been reworked.
Implemented a parallel, dispersing, converging and self-crossing aiming spread for torpedo carriers. These aiming spreads will be available to players once the relevant settings are enabled for the game units (ships and aircraft).
• Fighters: the air assault cone will overlap the landscape rather than be cut off by it
• Torpedo carriers: the air assault cone will be cut off by the landscape
• If the torpedo drop point is set on the landscape, the cone will not be rendered (displayed)
Minimized possibility of an assaulting re-run for air groups. From now on, air groups attack ships correctly the first time.
There is a time penalty for instances when an air group is completely destroyed. If a player decides to destroy the remaining aircraft in an air group to quickly launch a new one, the servicing time for that new air group will be increased two times for US aircraft and 3 times for Japanese aircraft. If a damaged air group reaches the carrier and lands on it, no penalty will be applied.
Now, an attack may not be canceled if the air group has already reached the approach point.
Fixed a bug that made it impossible for a player to rotate the lower cone of torpedo carriers in instances when cones were located under one another.
Fixed a bug that caused the final order (set by pressing and holding SHIFT) to be displayed on the air groups panel and on the air group itself rather than the current one.
Karma System
Karma is calculated as the difference between the number of compliments and reports received, and may not be less than zero. Karma is displayed by the player's nickname.
It is prohibited to compliment and report players within the same Division.
If a player is complimented or reported, a system message appears after a battle. The system message for reports will be displayed only if a player has been reported by at least two players.
The system message for compliments will show the specific number of people who complimented you (without specifying their nicknames, however).
Selling Modules (Compensation)
For any sale of a ship, all modules belonging to this ship will be sold as well (at half price and no more than one unit).
If that ship is re-purchased, all modules will need to be re-purchased as well.
The first time the game is launched after updating, modules currently available in the depot will be sold automatically. Only one unit of each module will remain in the depot for ships that a player already has in the Port. Attention! As part of this update's release, the majority of players will receive a large one-time compensation in Credits as a result.
Intro Mission Added "Introductory Mission," a new battle type available from the Port that allows players to replay the mission under certain conditions (currently, there should be no more than 10 Co-op or Random Battles on a player's account).
Added option to select a nation for completing the Introductory Mission (USA and Japan).
Added scenario for the Introductory Mission to be accessible on a Japanese ship (Japanese ships against US ships). Added message about the lack of server capacity to run the Introductory Mission (if it's not possible to run it for a particular player).
Chat System Improvements
Battle chat channel for Divisions introduced.
It will also be possible to disable messages in the battle chat. Either all messages, or messages from particular players can be disabled. Messages from all players can be disabled directly in the battle screen when the chat is active. Messages from certain players can be disabled in the statistics screen by pressing the TAB key. Messages can be enabled and disabled in the context menu that appears after right-clicking on the name of a particular player.
Other Chat changes:
• You cannot send chat messages if messages from all players are disabled
• Quick commands and in-battle reward notifications will remain active regardless of the state of the chat
• The chat will be automatically re-enabled once the battle during which it was turned off is over
Sound Improvements
• Optimized the high and low sound configurations; implemented a system of priorities for playing sounds
• Added new music tracks
• Added the sound of in-battle transition between the main cameras
• Added new voice messages for the "First Blood" and "Double Strike" achievements
• The sound of quick commands will differ for the player and his teammates (added a radio transmission effect)
• Added new complex sounds for ships' engines
• Added squeaking sound that is produced once angle turning is enabled (by pressing the Q\E buttons)
• Added siren to warn the player when his ship has lost 50% of her hit points (HP)
• Reworked the general music pattern of the game
Commander Management
• Implemented an option to display the comparative values of the integral characteristics of a ship in a tool-tip and in the skill-mastering modal window. The comparative values will only appear if a skill directly influences a particular integral characteristic of a given ship
• Implemented a mechanism to cancel the dismissal of a Commander that will operate for a short period of time (at present, 5 minutes)
• Added list of all Commanders to the Personal File to enable a player to switch between Commanders the way they switch between ships
• In case there is a mismatch between a commander's specialization and the ship that the Commander is assigned to, their basic specialization will be shown separately
• When a Commander is assigned to a ship, a dialog window will show the number of points required for retraining
• Players will be offered a chance to retrain the Commander automatically once he is assigned to a ship, similar to the process of purchasing and mounting ship modules after research; it will also be possible to return to the retraining process at a later stage if initially the player selected the 1st or 2nd retraining option when assigning the Commander
Permanent Camouflage
• Permanent Camouflage is bound to a specific (Premium) ship
• It is purchased only once and remains available forever (auto-resupply is free)
• It provides additional benefits for a given ship
• Each Premium ship owner will get a camouflage for a relevant ship free of charge
• Special New Year's camouflage for the Cleveland, Nürnberg, Gnevny and Minekaze ships will be released as well
"ARPEGGIO OF BLUE STEEL -ARS NOVA-" Comes to World of Warships
Exclusive anime-inspired ships join the fleet! Are you ready to add some stylized flair to your shipyard? The battle- torn oceans in World of Warships are getting unique in-game content inspired by the naval-themed sci-fi anime "ARPEGGIO OF BLUE STEEL -ARS NOVA-." Read the previous announcement for the latest details.
Update 0.5.2 only preps this content -- you'll be able to earn the "Arpeggio" ships via a series of missions that begin in January. Stay tuned!
Other Changes
Improvements for bot-piloted aircraft carriers:
• Being undetected, bots will carry out patrolling operations from one carrier spawn point to another, choosing between them randomly. Bots will travel straight forward at maximum speed
• Upon detection, bots will try to escape from enemy ships (at maximum speed, too) by making tracks. The bot will stop making tracks and proceed to the patrolling of carrier spawn points as soon as it has remained undetected by enemy ships for 30 seconds. On re-detection, bots will set a course to escape from the enemy
• Aircraft carriers will not attempt to avoid collision with islands any more: in Update 0.5.1, carriers and battleships laid their routes bypassing clusters of islands. For aircraft carriers, that decision turned out not to be particularly successful, especially on Strait. It was reversed to make carriers choose the shortest path in setting their course. Given their tendency to stay in the rear, the changes will be nearly invisible, except for maps where carrier spawn points are separated by islands, as on the "Strait" map
• Aircraft carriers will tend to use their fighters more actively
• The bonus provided by "India Bravo Terrathree" signal has been doubled: it now provides a -10% discount for repair costs (rather than -5%)
• Changed the parameters of the "Target Acquisition System Modification 1" upgrade. Added the following parameters: +50% to the range of assured acquisition; +20% to the acquisition range of torpedoes
• Added option to watch video tutorials using the built-in browser
Until a player has reached the 4th Service Record level, the browser will be accessible through a banner in the Port; once the 4th Service Record level is achieved, the browser will appear in the Escape menu only.
• "Controls" menu added an option to enable/disable the display of a clock in the Port to show the current time. Disabled by default
• The clock will be displayed on all Port tabs
• If a camera is rotated in the Port with the right mouse button pressed, the interface fades away to show only the Port and the player's ship
• Port selection functionality has been added. Players can now select between different ports
• Implemented the mechanism to display changes in ships' integral characteristics after the installation of upgrades, flags and camouflage, taking into account all skills mastered by the ship Commander
System Changes
• Improved performance of the visual effects subsystem for CPUs with more than 2 cores
• Added "borderless window" screen mode (launch the game client in faux fullscreen without window borders
• Optimized the game interface in the Port and Missions interface in general
• Optimized ship carousel performance for players with numerous ships (application of filters, switching slots, enabling/disabling compact view)
• Optimized scrolling for ranks and levels in the player's Service Record
• Optimized the movement of water surface
• Fixed flickering bloom issue
• Added option to change gamma in the windowed mode, not just in the full screen mode. Any change of Gamma will apply to a 3D scene only
• Updated legal info
• Fixed error that caused delays in the reproduction of visual effects when switching between camera modes
• Fixed visual bug that caused ships to twitch during turns
• New multi-thread unpack system implemented. This allows faster unpacking of data for some computers, and you can pause and resume the process
• New game client file system implemented. All the following updatees will be applied in two steps: game client core files first and content files after that
Mini-Client (trial update)
The mini client is about 30% of the size of the complete update, and offers new/returning players to play without downloading the full client. It offers access to ships of tiers I and II, including Premium ships, as well as maps for those tiers.
The main restrictions of the mini client in terms of functionality are the following:
• Can't create a Division
• Can't be invited to join a Division by another player
• Can't select a Port
• All warships and maps, except for those mentioned above, are unavailable
In-Game Economy Changes
The Credit reward for capturing key areas in the Domination mode has been reduced by 20%.
In light of this, and in order to bring the amount of XP and Credits earned to our planned values, we changed the reward ratios for the majority of researchable ships. We draw particular attention to a significant increase in the amount of XP and Credits earned on tier IX-X ships.
Increased XP ratios for the following ships:
• 4% for Bogue
• 3% for Essex
• 4% for Midway
• 4% for Wyoming
• 13% for Iowa
• 18% for Montana
• 18% for Erie
• 22% for Chester
• 2% for Omaha
• 6% for Cleveland
• 6% for Pensacola
• 15% for Baltimore
• 14% for Des Moines
• 9% for Sampson
• 2% for Wickes
• 9% for Nicholas
• 7% for Farragut
• 20% for Hermelin
• 15% for Kolberg
• 19% for Karlsruhe
• 8% for Nürnberg
• 21% for Yorck
• 8% for Roon
• 36% for Hindenburg
• 5% for Zuiho
• 4% for Hiryu
• 2% for Taiho
• 32% for Hakuryu
• 9% for Izumo
• 8% for Yamato
• 6% for Hashidate
• 5% for Chikuma
• 3% for Furutaka
• 19% for Ibuki
• 11% for Zao
• 4% for Wakatake
• 27% for Shimakaze
• 8% for Orlan
• 47% for Storozhevoi
• 41% for Derzki
• 30% for Izyaslav
• 8% for Gnevny
• 18% for Khabarovsk
Decreased XP ratios for the following ships:
• 5% for Ranger
• 7% for Wyoming
• 3% for North Carolina
• 8% for St Louis
• 5% for Phoenix
• 5% for Myogi
• 5% for Kongo
• 3% for Fuso
• 6% for Nagato
• 13% for Amagi
• 11% for Kuma
• 10% for Isokaze
• 3% for Hatsuharu
Increased Credit ratios for the following ships:
• 9% for Langley
• 5% for Bogue
• 8% for Independence
• 6% for South Carolina
• 4% for North Carolina
• 11% for Iowa
• 28% for Montana
• 8% for Erie
• 13% for Chester
• 6% for Omaha
• 7% for Cleveland
• 4% for Pensacola
• 3% for New Orleans
• 7% for Baltimore
• 18% for Sampson
• 15% for Wickes
• 12% for Clemson
• 17% for Nicholas
• 20% for Farragut
• 4% for Mahan
• 3% for Fletcher
• 5% for Gearing
• 21% for Hermelin
• 18% for Kolberg
• 25% for Karlsruhe
• 4% for Königsberg
• 13% for Nürnberg
• 25% for Yorck
• 1% for Hipper
• 13% for Hindenburg
• 17% for Hosho
• 17% for Zuiho
• 7% for Ryujo
• 1% for Hiryu
• 1% for Hakuryu
• 4% for Kawachi
• 1% for Kongo
• 5% for Izumo
• 6% for Yamato
• 9% for Hashidate
• 5% for Chikuma
• 7% for Furutaka
• 6% for Aoba
• 1% for Mogami
• 17% for Ibuki
• 6% for Umikaze
• 8% for Wakatake
• 1% for Isokaze
• 5% for Minekaze
• 12% for Mutsuki
• 6% for Hatsuharu
• 13% for Fubuki
• 2% for Kagero
• 19% for Shimakaze
• 5% for Orlan
• 59% for Storozhevoi
• 43% for Derzki
• 35% for Izyaslav
• 13% for Gnevny
• 9% for Ognevoi
Decreased Credit ratios for the following ships:
• 6% for Ranger
• 10% for Lexington
• 7% for Wyoming
• 5% for Benson
• 6% for Zuikaku
• 16% for Taiho
• 6% for Amagi
submitted by NoZoupForYou to WorldOfWarships [link] [comments]

USN BB Split: Tier 5

A reminder that all proposed ships in the following posts are balanced around mechanics outlined in this post.
One note before I begin: as this is part of a total line overhaul, I am not exempting premium ships from the changes or any corresponding nerfs that might be necessary to balance them as a result.

Fast Line: New York (BB-34)

The first class of American battleships to carry the new 14"/45 gun, the New York class were in almost every other sense a repeat of the previous Wyomings. Indeed, the 5x2 14" design proposed for the latter formed the basis for the former; besides the different main battery and the corresponding size alterations, very few general characteristics differed.
For all the progress they represented in American battleship design though, the New Yorks carried on some traditions as well. They were the last class of American battleships to be powered by coal, and among the last battleships in the world to be commissioned with reciprocating steam engines. A Congressional budget battle also very nearly resulted in them being downsized to the original Florida design.
New York served as the flagship for the American occupation force at Veracruz shortly after entering service, and for Battleship Division 9 when it was sent to Europe. New York was the subject of much attention there, as an accidental collision and subsequent sinking of a U-boat led to her dry-docking, and naval architects from Europe jumped at the chance to see an American battleship up close. She led a typical interwar life for an American battleship, being heavily modernized and converted to oil in the 1930s, and upon the outbreak of war in Europe she was assigned to neutrality patrols in the Atlantic.
When Pearl Harbor happened, New York was getting her guns refitted, but upon completion of the work was immediately reassigned to the Atlantic on escort duty. She supported Operation Torch, but shortly thereafter became a training ship, alternating between this duty and convoy escort. Low morale aboard led to the Navy to transfer her to Pacific Fleet in February 1945, although the ship was dogged by propulsion breakdowns and propellor damage the entire way. After Operation Magic Carpet, despite efforts by her namesake state to spare her, she used as target for Operation Crossroads. While not sunk by any of the blasts, the hulk was massively contaminated with radioactivity and as such was of no further use besides as a scientific guinea pig. Once scientists had gleaned what they wanted, the hulk was towed out to sea and sunk as a target.
New York is the first of the current tech tree battleships to be in the "fast" line rather than the tank line, and despite her horrid speed in both reality and WoWS, she simply isn't as tanky as the other candidates for T5. Now, I am of the personal opinion that the New York is a solid battleship as she stands, but what can't be ignored is that she is a very demanding warship when uptiered. 19mm of armor everywhere that isn't turret or main belt, only 305mm of citadel armor, mediocre AA, and slow speed means that she needs an especially-top-notch battleship driver to succeed in a T5-7.
Thus, to ease the burden on those who can't be bothered to play at a T10 level at T5 (and frankly, you shouldn't be expected to), I'm suggesting a few buffs for her. Of course, as a member of the fast BB line, New York is still going to be relying more on firepower and agility to do work rather than durability, and as such her buffs are almost all offensively-related. The main one is a reload decrease to 30s on the top hull, and the others are buffing of her 5"/51's rate of fire from 8.57 rounds/minute base to 9 rounds/minute base (7s reload => 6.6s) along with revising her AA suite. Note that the secondary RoF increase is not going to be confined to her; it's done for consistency's sake with other T5+ USN dreadnoughts as much as for actually buffing her. With only 3 guns per side on the upgraded hull, it's not going to be of much use anyways.
Both hulls' AA armament will change to reflect the greater likelihood of facing T7 aircraft compared to CBT/OBT, when they were drawn up. However, New York's end-war AA suite is still way too good for T5, and thus I'm ahistorically toning it down. In addition, the ship will receive a spotter plane on the A hull only as a nod to the fact she had a catapult during this era atop the #3 turret (it's possible in WoWS now whereas it wasn't when the ship was introduced).
Stock hull AA:
  • Weapons: 8x1 76.2mm/50 MK10, 2x4 28mm/75 MK2 Mod. 2, 8x1 12.7mm Browning M2 Mod. 2
  • Average DPS (per weapon): 22.4/13.6/30.4
  • Base range: 3.51km/3.09km/1.2km
Note that this doesn't change the secondary battery, just add a pair of 1.1" quads.
Upgraded hull AA:
  • Weapons: 10x1 76.2mm/50 MK10, 6x2 40mm Bofors MK1, 24x1 Oerlikon MK4
  • Average DPS (per weapon): 28/67.8/86.4
  • Base range: 3.51km/3.51km/2.01km
Bear in mind that, while this AA suite looks a little too good on paper, almost all of these guns are situated in New York's unarmored superstructure, and the use of twin Bofors and single Oerlikons means that these mounts will die if basically anything hits them save maybe HE from a V-170 or Kolberg. Remember that the repair party's module repair function doesn't restore destroyed mounts.
I do also think buffing the ship's deck armor from 19mm to 25mm (at least across the entirety of the citadel length, i.e. from the #1 to #5 turret) is a good quality-of-life increase, but I'm not entirely sure it wouldn't make the New York overpowered as a result. On the table for sure, but I'd prefer offense-related buffs first due to the nature of the line she plays in.

Tank Line: Nevada (BB-36)

The first of America's groundbreaking Standard-Type battleships, the Nevada class carried the same main battery of 10 14" guns as the preceding New York class, but featured heavily-reinforced armor and an oil-fired propulsion plant. Built specifically for long-ranged artillery duels, the class was years ahead of its time; so much so that their basic armor scheme was the only such one retained on warships built after Jutland - other navies were scrambling to incorporate lessons learned. Unlike other battleships of the time, a second layer of internal citadel armor was omitted, as well was all armor around non-vital parts, in favor of layering as much steel as possible around the bare minimum amount of hull required to maintain buoyancy - a sound implementation of all-or-nothing armor protection. The ships also lacked side-mounted bunkers that all previous battleships had, featured the first underwater protection system on an American warship, and Nevada was the first battleship fitted with geared turbines.
But, in keeping with many American warships of the era, the Nevada class was ordinary or even behind contemporary capital ships in other design features. For one, the low-lying casemate guns that proved unusable in basically any sea state were retained, and for another, the obsolete "ram bow" was fitted despite lobbying by navy officers to address both issues. Lastly, Oklahoma was fitted with reciprocating steam engines, being the last American warship ever built as such.
Both ships were deployed to Europe during WWI, though neither accomplished much. The USN's massive dreadnought-building program in the wake of the Great War, combined with the subsequent Washington Naval Treaty, rendered them the oldest units in the battle line as early as 1923, and as such, towards the end of the decade, the ships were extensively modernized. Their 14" guns were rebuilt with larger chambers, the turrets' maximum elevation was boosted, the secondary battery was moved into new casemates a deck higher, their 3" AA guns were replaced with 5"/25 mounts, their propulsion plant was overhauled, and they gained massive torpedo bulges. Secondary gunners manning these exposed mounts doubtlessly had some qualms about lacking all but basic splinter protection, which would contribute to the use of blast shields and enclosed secondary turrets on later warships.
Both had interesting interwar service records: it is claimed that Nevada's crew was responsible for introducing baseball to Brazil during a diplomatic visit, while Oklahoma was instrumental in the evacuation of American citizens and refugees when the Spanish Civil War broke out. The sisters' hitherto-separate destinies would converge on December 7th, 1941, when both were attacked by Japanese aircraft at Pearl Harbor. By a stroke of luck, Nevada was berthed last in Battleship Row, had multiple boilers lit, and no main battery powder loaded, and thus managed to get underway. She made it as far as the west end of Ford Island before being targeted by a wave of dive bombers in hopes of creating a bottleneck, although quick thinking saw to it that she was beached out of the way instead. In a testament to her design, despite water pouring in through torpedo hits and bomb holes in the now-awash main deck, the battleship only touched bottom when she ran into the island. The absence of main battery powder charges likely also saved the ship from suffering a powder detonation as a result of the fires started. Oklahoma was not as lucky as her sister, and struck by 3 torpedoes in the opening moments of the attack. Caught with watertight doors open and crew unprepared, the battleship rolled over and capsized, taking two more torpedoes in the process. The battleship was salvaged later, but while under tow to the West coast, she capsized rapidly in a storm and sank, almost taking the tugboats with her (for those of you who've watched T.U.G.S, one of those was the real-life Hercules).
Refloated in February 1942, the ship underwent repair and modernization throughout much of the year, emerging with new radar fire control systems, uniform dual-purpose secondary battery, massive numbers of light AA guns, and a South Dakota-esque superstructure characteristic of all Pearl Harbor survivors. She would escort convoys until 1944, where she took part in D-Day (being the only Pearl Harbor veteran to do so). Fall of that year would see her face her most difficult opponent: a fortress nicknamed "Big Willie" armed with the salvaged guns of the Bretagne-class battleship Provence. Despite dozens of hits, the fortress held out to the bitter end of Operation Dragoon. Following this, she was deployed to the Pacific theater, even accompanying the 3rd fleet to within range of the Japanese home islands, although she was denied her opportunity at revenge.
At almost 33 years of age by war's end, the battleship was deemed surplus despite the massive amounts of money sunk into her various modernizations, and was condemned to the Bikini Atoll target fleet. Designated the bombardier's target for the Able test, the ship was painted in a distinctive red (gib as premium camo plox) color to make identification easier. However, her luck held once more: the bomb missed by almost a mile, and she was spared much destruction as a result. Radioactive spray from the Baker test contaminated her, but she once again survived thanks to her tough construction. Her final act of service to her country would come in July 1948, when she was sacrificed to Iowa and two consorts as a gunnery target. In one final testament to her durability, the concentrated shellfire could not destroy her despite a total lack of damage control, and she had to be finished off with a torpedo.
T5 is where the tank line really comes into its own. The most notable change from here on out is the removal of the engine upgrade and its replacement with an additional C hull - this is required to progress to the next ship, which does make the required grind longer, but should not change the amount of XP necessary to elite the ship. This is accomplished by decreasing the amount of XP necessary for the B hull - with a line based around tanking, you need that extra HP as soon as possible. T5 and T7 will also have no rangefinder upgrade, instead seeing the range increase tied to their C hulls.


It goes without saying that Nevada excels here. Heck, if T5 BBs didn't have 19mm of armor, I'd say she's overpowered for T5 solely because of how tough she is. With an armor belt 343mm thick and turret faces 457mm thick, she is practically impervious to all but the largest battleship shells in the T5-7 range.
The ship also packs a hefty HP pool. Using her as-built standard (A), post-1942 standard (B), and post-1942 combat load (C) displacements as guidelines, this comes out to 43,800, 46,900, and 52,100HP respectively. Note that I'll be varying the basis for the B hull HP for later ships based on whichever one bestows more HP to the B hull - it's meant to be an intermediate grind, not a total pain, and thus doesn't follow the displacement figure of the associated refit. I'll go ahead and list the XP/credit distributions I have in mind for the hulls here as well.
  • B Hull: 6500 XP, 625,000 credits
  • C Hull: 9500 XP, 795,000 credits
Of note, I wasn't able to find a dedicated displacement figure for post-1942 Nevada, but given that the final guise of the New York class had them displacing between 33,000 and 35,000 tons, I took a guess of ~35,000 since Nevada is heavier than her predecessors by a bit.
The torpedo defense is an area where the Nevada outshines the New York as well, although the latter has a decent TDS too. Nevada's TDS, while deeper than that of Arizona and the Pennsylvania class, has thinner bulkheads. Overall, it's a weaker form of underwater protection than subsequent Standard-types, although still a step up from older designs. From estimates provided by u/beachedwhale1945, it should be in the 33-35% range, however I'll give her the lowball value of 33% since she already has a lot of health for T5. Although she didn't have bulges on her original hull, I think 13% TDS versus up to T7 torpedoes isn't a good idea.
Before we move on, let me reiterate that Nevada has 19mm of armor everywhere that isn't a turret, the belt, or the conning tower. This is no Arizona: she's hard to citadel for sure, but aim in the right spots and you can normal-pen her all day, and bear in mind that the repair party works best over time so focused-fire from multiple battleships can easily still bring her down.


Nevada has 2x3 and 2x2 14"/45 MK1/2/3/5 in an A-B-X-Y arrangement, with the A and Y turrets being the triple ones and the B and X guns being twins. As with the 14" guns on New York and proto-Florida, these vary by hull owing to the 1930s rebuilds extensively upgrading these weapons.
While in triple turrets, due to the wider spacing between barrels on New Mexico's guns these still have better dispersion/range ratio. While I will keep with tradition and not post any range figures, I will reiterate that the C hull upgrade, with its radar FCS, will be what provides the ship with a range boost. In addition, I'd suggest that maximum range, even with the C hull, be no higher than Arizona's 16km figure. For one, Nevada gets a spotter plane on all hulls. For another, she's not a sniper and the range figure should reflect this.
A hull: 2x2, 2x3 356mm/45 MK2
  • Reload time: 35s
  • 180 traverse time: 60s
  • Sigma value: 1.6
  • Dispersion/range ratio: 13.75m spread/km range
  • HE shell: 356mm Common HE
  • Maximum HE shell damage: 4900
  • Base fire chance: 27%
  • HE penetration: standard (59.33mm)
  • AP shell: 356mm Early AP
  • Maximum AP shell damage: 10000
  • AP shell weight: 1400lbs
  • Initial AP velocity: 792m/s
  • Initial HE velocity: 792m/s
B/C hull: 2x2, 2x3 356mm/45 MK8
  • Reload time: 35s
  • 180 traverse time: 60s
  • Sigma value: 1.6
  • Dispersion/range ratio: 13.75m spread/km range
  • HE shell: 356mm HC MK22 Mod. 0
  • Maximum HE shell damage: 5000
  • Base fire chance: 30%
  • HE penetration: standard (59.33mm)
  • AP shell: 356mm AP MK16 Mod. 11
  • Maximum AP shell damage: 10300
  • AP shell weight: 1500lbs
  • Initial AP velocity: 792m/s
  • Initial HE velocity: 834m/s
The secondary battery consists of a mixtures of 5"/51 MK7, 5"/25 MK19 Mod. 6, and 5"/38 MK12 guns, depending on the hull.
Stock hull: 12x1 127mm/51 MK7
  • Reload time: 6.67s
  • HE shell: 127mm HC MK39 Mod 2
  • Maximum HE shell damage: 1800
  • Base fire chance: 6%
  • HE penetration: standard (21.17mm)
  • Initial HE velocity: 960m/s
  • Base range: 4.0km
B hull: 8x1 127mm/25 MK19 Mod. 6, 12x1 127mm/51 MK7
5"/25 stats (see above for 5"/51s):
  • Reload time: 4.5s
  • HE shell: 127mm HC MK36
  • Maximum HE shell damage: 1800
  • Base fire chance: 9%
  • HE penetration: standard (21.17mm)
  • Initial HE velocity: 657m/s
  • Base range: 4.0km
C hull: 8x2 127mm/38 MK28 Mod. 1
  • Reload time: 6.0s
  • HE shell: 127mm HC MK32
  • Maximum HE shell damage: 1800
  • Base fire chance: 5%
  • HE penetration: standard (21.17mm)
  • Initial HE velocity: 792m/s
  • Base range: 4.0km
I know that many people are not happy with the 5"/38's performance as a secondary weapon in-game, but I don't want to buff its offensive stats, even if this is a brawling BB. The MK28 Mod. 1 has only 32mm of armor, but it's got a hefty survivability advantage over the current MK32 regardless, and it's the only buff I can justify given Nevada's outstanding survivability. Even then, I can only do this in good conscience because the firing arcs on these guns are not nearly as good as on true WWII battleship designs. The B hull's secondary battery still has better firestarting potential, but those guns are a lot harder to knock out than 5"/38 turrets. Moreover, the C hull, while an upgrade from the B hull, is supposed to lose some secondary potency as the 5"/38 was not an exceptional anti-surface weapon - the tradeoffs that tip the equation are HP and AA.
Speaking of AA, it's an absolute given that Nevada isn't getting her full post-Pearl Harbor AA suite.
Stock hull:
  • Weapons: 8x1 76.2mm/50 MK10, 8x1 12.7mm Browning M2 Mod. 2
  • Average DPS (per weapon): 22.4/30.4
  • Base range: 3.51km/1.2km
B hull:
  • Weapons: 8x1 127mm/25 MK19 Mod. 6, 2x4 28mm/75 MK2 Mod. 2, 12x1 12.7mm Browning M2 Mod. 2
  • Average DPS (per weapon): 58.4/13.6/45.6
  • Base range: 4.2km/3.09km/1.2km
C hull:
  • Weapons: 8x2 127mm/38 MK28 Mod. 1, 9x2 20mm Oerlikon MK20
  • Average DPS (per weapon): 120.8/54.9
  • Base range: 5.0km/2.01km
Nevada's top-hull AA suite is formidable at T5, especially in long-ranged damage output. I wanted to keep it below the modified New York, as the Nevada has significantly better long-ranged AA. Another reason is that raw AA firepower is Texas's thing through and through. Of course, this meant substituting obviously-inferior light AA guns and outright deleting many of the mounts, because just substitution alone wasn't enough.
This approach to balancing the AA battery is a bit out-of-line with how the USN flavor goes (good mid-ranged AA with lots of mounts), but I believe this can work just fine - the Germans have shown that decent long-ranged AA combined with weak short-ranged guns is an acceptable balancing approach, and the low-tier ships are not even renown for particularly-good AA without massive skill investment. At any rate, either C hull fit of Nevada will thus see the same weaknesses as German AA batteries: you lose one gun, and you will feel the DPS loss. Those 5"/38s are pretty tough, and you have a module repair to help keep them alive, but if you lose them you will be down to just your short-ranged Oerlikons. The 5"/38s are also in a very exposed location, which means they will be subject to a lot of fire, especially if you're flashing undue amounts of broadside.
As one last comment, while the Pearl Harbor refits are difficult to balance without taking some artistic liberty, I feel like they shouldn't be locked behind a paywall for those who want to play with them. I'm sure a lot of people would rather be able to play the ship for free, and with somewhat watered-down capabilities (but, of course, retaining the essence of them), than have to pay money for a ship that's within a shafted matchmaking bracket even if it does bestow the full historical capability. WG has done this to a reasonable degree of success with Cleveland's AA, as a proof of concept.


I already mentioned that Nevada doesn't have an engine upgrade, but what I didn't mention is that even among the Standard-types, she's slow. She only managed 21.4 knots on trials, and this was before she gained several thousand tons in refits. Her powerplant was never upgraded, and her sister Oklahoma, with reciprocating steam engines, suffered even worse from the effects of additional weight, making just 19.7kts with 24,800SHP by 1929. Though it's the lower of two values, few battleships before T7 are much faster than 21, and more importantly Nevada has the survivability to survive the slower-paced rush.
Despite this especially-low speed, Nevada is still a Standard-type, and thus not only has excellent tactical diameter but lower speed loss in a turn. I would estimate her turning circle to be around 610m. I decided to use the rudder shift times from New Mexico (thus, 19.7s stock, 13.5s B/C) as it still results in a very decent set of handling characteristics while not leaving the smaller Nevada without any advantages at all due to her smaller turning circle. Hell, most T5 BBs are in that neighborhood of upgraded shift time anyways.
And, after all, something needs to balance out this AA and survivability. Don't forget that she gets the tank heal: you'll be a little late to the party, but it's yours to own from then on if you play your cards right.


Were I not trying to be thorough, I wouldn't have bothered making a section on this. Nevada's giant tripod masts give her horrible stealth, and a South Dakota superstructure placed atop a hull with more weather deck freeboard than the latter battleship class doesn't help in the slightest. As she doesn't get this until the C hull, I feel it's only fair that the C hull alone receives the concealment penalty.
The masts that Nevada has on her A and B hulls are very similar to those found on Arizona and New York. I am not entirely sure why one of them has significantly-better stealth than the other, let alone why it's the bigger of the two, but I digress. With Nevada as a middle ground between them in size, I think a middle ground in detection is acceptable as well: 15.2km surface detection and 10.8km air detection range. The figures are slightly-biased towards those of the Arizona since Nevada is more similar to the latter.
This goes out the window on her C hull. Given that Alabama with her squatter overall silhouette is detected at 16.2km by sea and 12.15km by air, I'd suggest similar values of 16.0 surface detection and 10.9km air detection range by virtue of Nevada being smaller than the fast battleship in other dimensions besides height (a dimension which is largely irrelevant to visibility from the air).

Premium: Texas (BB-35)

Texas was the first American battleship to engage German forces when she fired on a surfaced U-boat shortly after the American declaration of war, however she shortly thereafter ran hard aground courtesy of navigational error. In a classic display of naval politics, Captain Victor Blue, protege of the Secretary of the Navy, was absolved of blame while his navigator was dishonorably discharged in the subsequent court-martial. Once repaired, she joined BatDiv 9 at Scapa Flow, where she would spend an uneventful year before a quiet transition to peacetime duties.
Here, ironically, she would be more renown than for her Great War service. She was one of the first flagships of the then-new Pacific Fleet, one of the first battleships to use a floatplane for artillery spotting, the first American battleship to have AA guns, the first American warship to mount a radar system, and the first warship to show movies for crew entertainment.
When war broke, she was assigned to convoy escort missions until October 1942, when Texas was tabbed to support Operation Torch. Later-famous reporter Walter Cronkite reported the events of the operation from aboard her, and, amusingly, outran rival correspondents stationed on the Massachusetts (yes, BB-59) back to the states by requesting to be flown in once land was within flying distance for Texas's floatplanes. Following Torch, Texas returned to escort duty until she was again called upon in 1944 to support Operations Overlord and Dragoon. After this, she was reunited with her sister when they were both transferred to the Pacific Fleet, supporting landings at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Texas fared much better than her sister upon war's end, being preserved as a museum ship that has lasted to this day. She is currently the only dreadnought-era battleship still in existence, though her future has been in jeopardy multiple times as age and the elements catch up to her.
This is an interesting ship to study through the lens of the rework I proposed. While her sister New York is at the bottom of the barrel for T5 BBs, Texas, with no real advantages over her sister save AA, is at the top, and the gap between their performances is quite astounding: anywhere from 33% to 50% more average damage, 5%-8% higher WR, 6x the plane kill rate, 0.4-0.6 higher ship kill rate, and 4%-11% higher survival rate than her sister, depending on the server. While she does have less battles played than New York, Texas is not all that far behind, even in the midst of the British BB frenzy, except on RU.
Unlike Utah, to whom I gave the tank heal, I think Texas should stick with the same heal her sister has. I also don't think she is in need of any buffs beyond this, as the module repair function greatly boosts the worth of her AA battery by allowing the mounts to survive under fire for longer, and her improved #3 turret arc gives her a leg up over New York anyways.
Whew, this was a long one. I'm still not certain on my method of balancing Nevada at T5, but if the 1942 refit turns out to be too much, it's always possible to rename the tech tree ship Oklahoma, replace the C hull with an ahistorical AA fit that keeps the 5"/25s, and call 1942 Nevada by her proper name. Feedback is, as always, appreciated.
Further reading:
  • 9/13/2017: Altered Nevada C hull AA refits, with the goal of lowering overall DPS to be less than that of the suggested New York refit and eliminating/minimizing mid-range AA. Thus, Nevada's AA will trade raw DPS for better ranged DPS. Also adjusted rate of fire metrics for Nevada's 5"/38 MK28 Mod. 1 guns in secondary mode: these mounts do not have as great arcs as they do on high-tier American BB designs.
  • 9/17/2017: Revised Nevada's TDS values after some discussion with other users.
  • 10/31/2017: Removed non-VT fuze AA suite for Nevada.
  • 1/17/2018: Nerfed Nevada's sigma by 0.2 and C hull secondary reload by 1s.
submitted by TenguBlade to WorldOfWarships [link] [comments]

DIVINE JUDGEMENT ON GOD'S ENEMIES. Cleveland Singles  Dating for Cleveland and Akron area Singles SL Video Live Stream - YouTube HOT GIRLS WALK Around IN PUBLIC NAKED!! Cleveland Singles - Dating for Cleveland and Akron area Singles

The Meet Your Future process combines executive recruiting methodologies and advanced search algorithms with matchmaking intuition to create a holistic approach to each relationship search. Depending on the preferences of each Client, matches can be based out of the Cleveland area, or anywhere across the United States. A Unique Matchmaking Service for Select, Single Professionals Articles have been written about Lunch Date by Crain's Cleveland Business, Small Business News, COSE, Plain Dealer, Cleveland Magazine, Currents, Sun News and The Beacon Journal. Please call us at 216-375-7706 for more information or fill out the form below. Our process is a combination of personal matchmaking with strict online procedures to bring you the most compatible matches possible. Membership Benefits The benefits of being a member of Cleveland Singles are here to make your love life the best it can be. A national matchmaking service with branches across the US, LUMA launched in Minneapolis and has Ohio branches in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. The Cleveland location is 1273 West 9th, #102. Clientele: LUMA markets its services for “single affluent executives and professionals.” Both men and women can purchase dedicated matchmaking The It’s Just Lunch Difference: Personalized Matchmaking. High Touch Service. Guaranteed Dates. Our dating experts provide an enjoyable alternative to online dating websites.

[index] [4] [61] [83] [10] [39] [56] [21] [39] [7] [40]


LLC Summer Services - Duration: 10 ... CUSTOM MATCHMAKING SOLO/DUO/SQUAD FORTNITE LIVE Team SaGe ... Inspirational Story of Cleveland Sports Radio Legend Garrett Bush of 92.3 The Fan ... Over 60 Dating Service - ATTRACTING MEN (part 1) - Tips for Over 60 Dating Service - Duration: 1:47. Jane Smith 18,660 views. 1:47. Women over 40, 50, 60 , and 70 Still Got It! Attractive & sexy ... Sunday Night 6:30pm Service With Apostle Ron C. Hill 07-26-2020 Apostle Ron C. Hill Sr. 124 watching Live now (Single)d Out Part 2: Dating Q&A Discussion Immanuel's Temple 144 watching We challenged ourselves to walk around naked for 24 hours... heres what happened! Edit By : Leaf Editing - Email: [email protected] ONLY FANS http://onlyf... Cleveland Singles is a premier #dating service designed for enterprising individuals who are interested in forming a genuine connection with other singles within the Greater Cleveland and ...