Bote or bust!
6 Likes
5 trillion more devblogs to naval, 50 new coastal vessels by next year
1 Like
Before Friday we going to see a Teaser.
2 Likes
Very well possible to be tomorrow
Enough boats please, let’s get to the main course
These are the main course and we are eating good.
4 Likes
I’m honestly glad to see them push bigger stuff for naval but they really need to get some game mode reworks along with it to be solid
11 Likes
I just want to see some of these other spaa’s
5 Likes
That’s fair, and thank you for not being rude like the other ground mains we see above.
5 Likes
I’d mainly be interested in subs for naval honestly, but idk how balanced it would be honestly
1 Like
From how I see it they are a hit or miss, either they are op or they wont affect much. You see subs weren’t that op during the Battle of the Atlantic event as the Destroyers had free reign with no Surface threat.
But in actual matches if you want to perform ASW, the moment you spawn in a DD or Sub chaser you might just get shredded by Cruisers and Battleships alike leaving the Submarine to just lob Torpedo at enemy without being detected further.
2 Likes
I think another factor to that is the nations involved as only the USA and Germany were in the event. Mainly some nations had a larger focus on asw ships/boat/planes while others didn’t. Further more, like you said, the USA had free surface reign as the only threats were either subs or clunky bombers with poor agility (plus I might be misremembering but didn’t the USA team also have fighters to protect the naval group?). With things like torpedo boats and attackers would tip the scales.
1 Like
2 is a couple. Even with a conservative estimate 4 is the floor of several, especially with the previous use of the word. Several has been used for all 10 tech trees as well.
Misquoting people seems to be your schtick today.
Catalina’s with Depth Charges.
So I did misremember. Either way, the fighter cover would be another factor
You got a point with the community update saying several, but i would honestly argue that 3 is the floor of “several” if we’re going for semantics.
Either way it’s not:
3 Likes
Don’t assume the meaning of posts, especially when your post is the sole post on this topic that speaks about “leaks”.
My post is an interpretation of language based on my rather deep knowledge; and with the dev blogs shown thus far as well as the SEAD event being prior to this update, I am seeing a path.
Gaijin will want to powercreep SPAA prior to giving aircraft the ability to powercreep back based on their previous behavior.
I don’t mind you disagreeing with my perspective, I do mind falsely attributing reasons behind my posts.
Nice! Rather have these naval dev blogs than boring top tier tank yawning.
4 Likes
I’m now very curious how you came to the conclusion of “Literally 5+” based on those factors.
I cannot personally think of any logical reasoning that concludes in “Literally 5+” without taking any leaks into account, hence why i, as a precautionary step, included them in my response. It can very well be assumed a minimum of 3, more likely 4 based on the other surrounding factors that aren’t leaks. but again, i cannot personally see how you arrived at “Literally 5+” and would be glad to have an explanation of your thought process that led you to that conclusion.
Very excelent update for the 5 naval players. They’re lucky 'cause there won’t be a any naval focused update in the future (I hope unless we get some cooler boats and operational carriers)