Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
It'll come down to play style tho. For instance the Des Moines is very good, but I can't do good things with it lol
But again, it is only good as you are good with it. I think it stands for all others.
Shame on you.
The one you feel most comfortable in....
I dare say that it is good, statwise maybe not but maybe its because its 1 of the t10`s u can get for coal which means less experienced players(me included) can get it without grinding a whole line or steel which is also very hard for beginners. That would offset the stats against its favour since experienced players will be playing the other t10 cruisers.
Playstyle wise, isn`t every ships playstyle somewhat different?
Hmm, I suppose. Some moreso than others though. Some ships play very similarly to another, and not always ships of the same nation.
DesMoines keep a special place imo, even with all Russian op trolls of last year, despite being one of the oldest, DesMoines (and zao as well tbh) remain a strong leader in t10 cruisers.
But except that, mino is very fun and quite powerful as well, Smolensk is op, Stalingrad is also op (but boring to play imo), Henry was also a monster before WG nerf his velocity beyond reason in 9.0, etc etc...
Quite a lot are very powerful, as long as u play them as intended and learned their strengths/weaknesses correctly.
... very hard to keep one above others, they are such different ships in practice.
But your question is pretty loaded. Every ship is the best, and the worst. Each ship must be understood deeply, and played to it's strengths.
I also have Salem and Hindenburg... Hindenburg is great!
And there is little more satisfying then using an island to get close to a BB and feed it 8 torps.
Salem is fine, but I use it generally in co-op for number-of-citadel missions.
I do have Smolensk and use it to annoy people... (and yes... no Karma)
Or in co-op for those number-of-fire missions.
Hindenburg is not that great. It's mediocre.
The game has an inbuilt russian bias so smol stalingrad or Moskva if you want the uplift.
Sorry but this is mostly nonsense.
Smolensk is made of single-ply toilet paper and can be citadeled from nearly any angle against heavy cruisers and battleships. Even some HE shells citadel a Smolensk. You have to know how to play a Smolensk. If what you said is true, Smolensk would be doing great on wows global statistics, and it’s not.
Second, Hindenburg has awesome German armor. It is not even close to Smolensk and Minotaur, which are light cruises.
Third, Stalingrad is awesome. It’s hard to citadel them. Their AP shells can citadel battleships. Stalingrad is a heavily armored battlecruiser.
Edit: It does have weak sides, but good players usually own this ship, and would rarely show you that side.
That is all.