Zuikaku

We don't even have coastal batteries or forts. I think adding forts is more important than adding planes. At least at the moment.

Implementing representation of the weather would solve many complaints on spotting. While weather is somewhat represented, we see nice ,clear, blue sky and calm sea. And then a destroyer pops out of nowhere 3km from your battleship. Yes, somewhere up and left there is info that visibility is low and it is dusk and sea is not calm, but all you can see is your ships on the bright sunny day. You can not see fog or wind. Immersion killer! And regarding wind, does it have any impact on targeting?

Nobody misses the weather effects and nightbattles? Nobody misses representation of sea state and wind? Imagine trying do do battleship ambush missions during the night and snowstorm.

Too bad that weather effects and captains are still not in sight.

Dud torpedoes are going to devalue destroyers? No, they are going to put them in the right place. Torpedoe attacks were hard to conduct but devastating with a bit of luck. What you want is the guarantee that any risk you undertake with destroyers will pay off all the time. Well, luckilly no more! Also sea state should also affect torpedo performance.

Ability to equip transports as auxiliary cruisers or commerce raiders an send them to stalk enemy shipping lines. Selecting captains for such ships shoul'd also be very important.

1. Torpedo spread setup. Narrow, normal and wide. 2. Ability to fire only individual torpedo mount if ship have more of them. 3. Kill list in each ship statistic screen (campaign only). 4. Not so perfect torpedoes. Introduce duds, failed torpedo runs etc.

I see lots of people still think that hitting bus sized, fast moving target at 500m distance while moving itself and rolling left and right is easy task to do. Do you even know what the bus looks like at 500m distance? Do you know that most 1900 era 5" guns and smaller didn't have any kind of optics at all?

Gosh, just give us realism panel so that game can be fun even for the players who expect sniper arena. Do the same with the torps. Something like flawless torpedoes and historical torpedoes.

Dont know. Ships tend to roll. Dependd heavily on sea state, ship stability/vibrations, wind...

I enjoy historical gameplay. Yes, this is boring to the most. Realism panel would make everybody happy, right?

Or just maybe this isnt the game for you. The best solution would be realism menu where you can choose between realistic gunnery and torps and arcade mode with gyrostabilised guns supported by laser rangefinders.

Well it depends. If you play shooters then, yes, you expect to be godlike. If you are playing something which pretends to be historical then you are on unrealistic expectations if you expect every torpedo to be perfect. In Grest Naval Battles, which was amazing naval simulation for a time, you felt great satisfaction if your salvo managed to hit target and in fact detonated.

Can't believe somebody still thinks torpedoes are not OP. In the situation where there are no duds, torpedo failures, breakdowns, failures to explode on impact and imperfect detonators. So, yes, if you look from perspective of WOWS players torpedoes are not OP. But if I remember correctly this game was advertised as historically accurate and some of us find flawless torpedoes unacceptable and OP.

No, 1 month turns do not result in campaign being too slow. Hope devs won't rush again to make gameplay more optimised for WOWs players. Not after giving priority to 20" superbattleships over ironclads, predreadnoughts and early dreadnoughts!

Hey, speak for yourself! 😁 I like small battles more then the big ones and find them more interesting. Plese do not remove 1 vs. 1 ship battles and small engagements. I absolutely hate big fleet slugfests.

Good luck with that. They continue maintaining strict radio silence.

I can agree that their (devs) community management is awfull. They leave us with feeling that they just don't care. I also can agree that they are doing some bad design decisions (by insisting on superbattleship hulls). But I'm somewhat reluctant to agree on that they do not listen. They do improve things we report. Hell, I even put more blame on community than on devs regarding superbattleship hull spam we are witnessing now. Who can not remember times when fair chunk of community (under obvious influence of WoWs and similar shooters) insisted on 100k tonnes BBs and 20" quad turrets. Some of you begged for this and these of you are to blame for UAD moving into the waters of unrealistic shooter. The devs are to blame for bending under pressure. So, yes, I'm also concerned for the future of this game. I'm worried that WoW fans will ruin it. I'm worried by Game labs policy of maintaining complete radio silence. I woul'd love to see this game finished but I'm concerned. We are kept in dark, community is fed up and everything seems to be falling apart.

So what is the difference between leaked now scrapped campaign and the upcoming one?

Not to mention that early sjips are more interesting and varied.

Hey, @Nick Thomadis but why did you choose to do Germany vs. Britain campaign for start? Seems that you somewhat overstretched yourself by doing this. Wouldn't be much more easier if you did Italy vs. Austro-Hungary campaign limited to just Adriatic without the need to do the whole world map? And hope you won't forgot torpedo boats. I mean the late ones like Elcos, MAS or Schnellboats.

There is a possibility that the devs have been abducted by grey aliens and submited to brutal medical experiments. Suffering from this trauma, when they return we'll get more 200k ton superbattleships instead of old predreadnought hulls.

They just don't talk much, aint they?

Dead in the water with rapid flooding and heavy stern list.

When you load savegame no battledamage is visible on the hull. Also, fired/hit ratio stats for all of the guns are lost.