Q:Why do Émile Bertin and Duguay-Trouin have no access to the Engine Boost consumable? Logically, if speed is an asset of the French Cruiser line then Light Cruisers of the French line should also be able to use Engine Boost at a lower level(i.e. 10%).

A(Vessery):We don't want to give low-tier ships so many consumables. Our plan is to introduce with new opportunity for players on high-tier. Both cruisers have plane, hydroacoustic search and good speed for their level. This set of consumables is enough.

Q:为什么Émile Bertin和Duguay-Trouin得不到引擎增压。从逻辑上来说如果说fa巡的优点是速度快，那么轻巡也应该得到水平稍低一些的引擎增压(比如说10%的)

A(Vessery):我们不想给低级船太多的消耗品，我们的计划还是在高级再给玩家这些机会。这两艘船都有水战和水听。与同级的船相比她们也有很不错的航速。她们的消耗品其实已经够用了。

Q: How can you allow a biased map such as "Strait" in ranked play. C cap is further from spawn than A cap, among the obvious advantages the northernmost team has for grabbing B cap.

A: Heya! Asymmetrical maps don't always give obvious advantages. For now, as I can see, the Northern team has slightly lower WR. The map will probably be tweaked for better balance, but overall, your impression that the Norther team has better conditions is wrong. I was surprised myself!

Q:你们为什么会让Strait这种对双方不公平的图出现在排位里。C点离出生点的距离明显比A远。北部的那队在占领B上明显有优势。

A:Heya!不对称的地图通常也不对带来非常明显的优势。现在，按照我看到的，北边的那一队的胜率反而稍微低一点，这张图在之后可能会调整使其对双方更公平。然而总的来说，你认为的北部的那队的条件更好其实是不对的。我自己都觉得有点吃惊。

Q: As someone who bought and loves the Duca d'aosta, purely for the commander's voice alone, are we going to see any more Italian ships in game any time soon?

A: Some Italian ships are in development plans, unfortunately, I cannot give you ETA without official announcement. But yes, we are definitely going to see more Italian ships in game.

Q:有些人仅仅是因为指挥官语音而买了并且喜欢Duca d'aosta，我们以后会看到更多的意大利船吗

A:有些意大利船已经在我们的开发计划中了，然而在没有官方通告的情况下我也没有办法给你预计出的时间。不过可以肯定的是我们以后一定会看到更多的意大利船

Q: Question about the smoke changes. Where does the Kutuzov fall in all this? Cause if you are afraid of IFHE cruisers in clan games being the meta in giant blobs of smoke, it's one of a few cruisers capable of generating that smoke on it's own, if you aren't wanting like an IFHE Chapy parked in that smoke farming damage, isn't that what the Kutuzov basically is?

A: If we're doing global changes, I doubt there will be any exceptions. As I said, IFHE + smokes combo is too strong, and it hurts competitive meta according to our obvservations AND player feedback, and here the ship doesn't really matter - it can be Kutuzov with her own smokes or Chappy parked in other smoke - we are going to find a way to reduce the efficiency of this combo.

That's going to be fair, because at the same time, BBs (who are the main targets for IFHE) will lose the ability to safely shoot from smoke whatsoever.

Q:关于烟雾改动的一些问题。Kutuzov会变成什么样。因为如果你们不喜欢带了IFHE的巡洋舰在军团作战中在一大团烟里输出。这是其中一艘可以自己产生烟雾的巡洋舰，如果你们不想让一艘带了IFHE的Chapayev躲在烟里输出，那Kutuzov不就是靠那种玩法玩的吗?

A:如果我们做的是整体的改动，那我估计也不会有什么例外了。就像我说的，IFHE+烟的组合太强了，而且从我们的调查和玩家反馈来看，这种打法对竞争性的玩法影响很不好，至于究竟是哪一艘船并不重要，这可以是Kutuzov蹲在自己的烟里或者Chapayev躲在别人的烟里。我们正在寻找一种方法来降低这种打法的输出效率。这其实是公平的。因为与此同时，BB(IFHE的主要目标)也会失去毫无顾忌地蹲烟输出的机会。

Q: Why Jack Dunkirk and not William Tennant, or at the very least Dunkirk Joe (which was his actually nickname)?

A: Legal reasons. We'd love to, but licensing such characters is surprisingly hard:( I'm glad we managed to resolve all issues with Yamamoto, by the way - there was a chance of failure too.

Q:为什么敦刻尔克的奖励是Jack Dunkirk而不是William Tennant，最起码也要是Dunkirk Joe啊(事实上是他的昵称)?

A:法律问题。我们当然想那么做，但是要得到使用这些人物的批准其实是出人意料的难:( 我们很高兴可以解决关于*****的这些问题，其实这本来也很有可能失败。

Q:I can get behind the line if Nelson is released as a permanent campaign reward or a Free XP purchasable ship.

Such an iconic ships should to be available to all the player base.

A: No, they shouldn't. There should be balance in premium/regular iconic ships, because we need to release iconic premiums in order to be profitable and develop the game further on. Nelson is a T7 ship, no matter how it is distributed, it won't be cheap (in terms of money) or easy to get (in terms of free XP or task difficulty).

Q:我希望纳尔逊能够作为一个永久的战役奖励或用****购买的船。这样一艘标志性的船应当让每一位玩家都有机会拿到。

A:不，我们不应当这样做。标志性的金币船和银币船之间应当有所平衡，因为我们需要发布一些标志性的金币船来骗氪好让游戏继续发展。纳尔逊作为一艘7级船，不管最后获得方式如何，它都不会便宜(用钱来衡量的话)或容易得到(用自由经验或任务难度来衡量的话)。

Q: To Wargameing a few questions, How do you determine the range of guns for secondary guns in the game as balanced? For example, why is the 5.9” guns of the top tier German Battleships have over 11 kilometers in range max when the 6” guns on Nelson is projected to be about 7 kilometers max? Why does the tier 9 German Battleship not have the name Ulrich von Hutten or Götz von Berlichingen? Why does the Wyoming and the New York and Texas not get their float plans? Is it because of difficulty rendering them on turrets? And lastly why does the Hood not get the four torpedo tubes that she had when she went down? I know that hood is spec’d for AA in game but historical the UP rockets were terribly and would have been removed. I believe the hood’s torpedoes would help her in close combat. Thank you

A: Hello!

Secondary gun range is pure gameplay/balance.

Sorry, but why should it have such name?

Yes, right now we don't have the mechanics of turret catapult, and it is not a priority.

We don't implement fixed torpedo tubes in the game.

Yes they probably were, this is why they are more like panic weapon to debuff bombers drop:)

You are welcome!

Q:顶级德战的5.9英寸炮(150mm)有超过11km的射程而纳尔逊的7英寸炮只有大约7km的最大射程?为什么9级德战不叫做乌尔里希·冯·胡滕或者格茨·冯·伯利欣根?为什么怀俄明、纽约和****没有水上飞机(译注：mdzz原文float planes少打一个e，我还想了半天这什么鬼东西)?是因为把它们实装到炮塔上很困难吗?最后，为什么胡德没有她沉没时所拥有的4根鱼**?我知道胡德在游戏中获得了AA的特化但是历史上她的防空火箭很糟糕，甚至可能将要被拆除。我相信胡德的鱼雷能在近战中有所帮助。谢谢。

A:你好。

副炮射程纯粹是为了游戏性而平衡。

抱歉，但我们为什么要如此命名?

是的，现在我们并没有炮塔弹射器的运作机制，而且它的优先级不高。

我们不打算在游戏里实装固定鱼**。

是的，它们(指胡德的防空火箭)的确很糟糕，这也是为什么它更像是用来阻止轰炸机投弹的威吓武器。

不用谢。

Q: Question : Why do you hate the players?

A: Answer: We don't. You should get some sleep, your question is psychedelic. I am worried.

Q：你们为什么要和玩家过不去?

A：我们没有啊。你应当保证充足睡眠，你的提问仿佛是石乐志。这令我担忧。

There was also a discussion about BB AP damage to light targets, especially DDs.Well, honestly, we still need more specific data inquiries to be sure, but overall, there are no signs of any changes or bugs. We will continue the research, because we want to be 100% sure. However, it would be good for balance to reduce BB AP damage to light targets, to force BBs into more shell choice, and to reduce the “Devastating Strike” feeling for DDs and cruisers. There are many ways to do it, but the most logical (at least this is our conclusion for now) is to update underwater ballistics model. Point is, the problem is not with simple overpens, it is more with regular pens, when heavy shells arm at water and then explode inside a DD or light section of a cruiser, dealing significant damage. To change this, we need to rework a section of ballistics, which is, honestly, quite scary (being one of the most complex game mechanics), but doable. We will start working on the prototype very soon, but I don’t expect we’ll manage this in 2017.ETAlooks like mid-2018, as there are a lot of work to do, and a lot, A LOT of testing to conduct before we can even try implementing it.

In the meantime, other workwill go on, so that huge ETAdoesn’t mean we won’t address BB balance in other aspects. Underwater ballisticsis not the only thing that can be changed for good– on the contrary, quite soon, a couple of important features will be delivered, and they will contribute to inter-class balance in a positive way.

之前也有一个关于BB的AP对轻甲目标特别是DD的讨论。老实说，我们还是需要更多的特定的数据来进行确认，但是通体来说，这应该不是bug。但我们会继续进行调查以保证100%的准确。但是，减少BB的AP弹对轻甲目标的伤害是有利于游戏平衡的，这样可以让BB进行更多的弹药选择，也可以减少DD和CA的那种被“Devastating Strike”的感觉。有很多方法来这么做，但是其中最符合逻辑的(至少是我们现在的结果)是更新水下弹道模型。重点在于，问题一般不是简单的过穿，更多的是正常的击穿，就是重型炮弹在水中击穿并在DD和CA的轻甲部分爆炸，造成显著的伤害。为了改变这个，我们需要调整一部分的炮弹弹道，这东西，说实话，挺吓人的(这是最复杂的几个游戏机制之一)，但是也是可以完成的。我们很快就会开始制作原型，但我并不期望我们在年内把这个做出来，这个估计要到2018年中期才会出来，因为我们不仅有很多事情要做，而且在我们尝试实装之前还要进行一大堆测试。

同时，其他的工作会继续进行，所以那个那么长的预计时间并不代表我们不会在其他方面平衡BB，水中弹弹道并不是唯一一个会变得更好的东西。恰恰相反，很快就会有很多重要的东西出现并以一种积极的方式促进舰种之间的平衡。

Q: Please clarify the positions of the tiers 7 and 8 RN BBs, and let me re-iterate that putting such famous and anticipated ships as Nelson or 14" KGV behind a premium paywall will not go down well among the community. Why do we need Monarch at all, when we already have plenty of ships with 2 armament choices of different calibres? Just balance KGV for tier 8 and give it both the 14" and 15" (or 16") options.

On the same vein, why does every line need to be so unique to the point of being gimmicky and inconsistent? See RN CLs. I feel that if you pursue this strategy for too long, you will rapidly run out of ideas and harm the game balance. I do not mind if a line is a near copy of an existing one, the historical relevance and appearance of the ships alone is enough distinguishing features for me. I just want reliable and simple RN BBs with no fancy toys.

Thanks for your time

A: I cannot 100% confirm the final line-up for RN BB branch. However, I can say that Nelson being premium and King George going to T7, being replaced with Monarch, have major gameplay reasons:

King George does not look good on T8 in terms of firepower, while it looks absolutely adequate for T7.

Nelson is a fine ship for very good players, but being in the branch, it has all chances to become a breaking point, where the major part of playerbase will stumble. Of course we would like to have it in the branch as iconic ship, but gameplay should come first. We do not expect Nelson to be good source of income, because premium RN mid-tier BB niche is already occupied by Warspite and Hood, and the point here is not to earn extra money, but to release a line which will have nice progression for all players. Who knows, maybe Nelson will remain premium, but with some other means of distribution...we'll see.

While the final decisions are not made, I can say that after testing different loadouts of RN BB, we're slowly coming to the conclusion this branch may not need any "gimmicks" to be viable. We will be considering basic BB loadout for it, with only advanced heal being "consumable gimmick".

Thank you too for good questions of immediate interest.

A(Tuccy):To expand on this from the historical point of view: "Just balancing KGV for Tier VIII and give her both 14" and 15" options" would mean she won't be KGV as built anymore (as the 3x3 15" was alternative design to the 3x4 14", ie the KGV the Admiralty wanted and before being cut down to fit in the tonnage limit). So... Effectively what Monarch is. Now there would be few options (making the "real" KGV stock configuration, for example)... But their result would be nobody really playing the famous historical configuration (say what you will about "historical enthusiasts for sure would", when it comes to winning and progressing, players generally do not stay on Stock longer than they need to). So... What is more important for you? To play a King George V in the proper configuration... Or to have King George V as a name on Tier VIII? ;) As it works in the tree that can be constructed from the previews we released (mind you: nothing is final until the release - you can remember swaps in the RU or IJN DD lines even quite short time before release) you would get the "real" KGV on VII and the "ideal" KGV on VIII.

Q:请说明一下T7和T8的英战到底是什么，并且我想重申把Nelson和14寸KGV变成金币船肯定会在社群中引起不好的反向。我们已经有了很多可以选择两种不同口径的主炮的船，为什么还要那个Monarch?把KGV放到8级去而且给她14寸和15寸(或者16寸)的选择就行了。同样的，为什么每条线都要这样有“特色”和与众不同?看看英巡就知道了。我觉得如果你们太过追求这种“要有特色”的想法，你们很快就会没有更多的选择，最终还是会影响游戏平衡。我也不介意一条和其他的线差不多的线。船的历史关联度和外观就已经够让我感觉不好的了，我只想要可靠简单，没有什么花哨玩意的英战。

感谢您的时间

A(S_O):我不能100%地确定最后出来的英战线是什么样的。但是我可以告诉你Nelson会变成金币船而KGV会被Monarch替换然后放到T7，原因如下：KGV在火力上的确不适合T8，但是放在7级肯定是比较合理的;Nelson对那些玩得好的玩家来说是艘不错的船，但是要是放在科技树里，那肯定会成为一个断点，大部分玩家都会在这里玩得不舒服。当然我们也愿意让她成为这条线里标志性的一艘船。但是游戏体验还是第一位的。我们都不期望Nelson成为一个好的收入来源，因为中级的金币英战的位置已经被Warspite和Hood，而且我们的目标也不是赚额外的钱，而是做出一条可以让玩家得到连贯的游戏体验的科技线。不过谁知道呢，也许Nelson会继续作为金币船，但是考虑到其他的因素，我们会看到的。

尽管我们还没有做出最后的决定，但是我可以说在我们测试了英战的不同的装备后，我们渐渐得出了这条线不需要什么“特殊消耗品”的结论。我们会为英战考虑基本的BB消耗品。她们的在消耗品上的花招也只有“英系维修小组”。

A(Tuccy):从历史的角度来拓展一下这个问题：把KGV放到8级然后给她14寸或者15寸炮就代表着这再也不是曾经被建造出来的那艘KGV了(3x3 15寸是3x4 14寸的一个替代性的设计，也就是说本来海军部期望的KGV后来被削成这个样子来满足条约的吨位要求)。所以把Monarch放在8级肯定更好。现在的选择也不多(比如说把“真实的”KGV作为白板船体)。但是这样只会导致没什么人会认真地玩这个著名的历史配置(你会说什么“历史爱好者肯定会”，但是关乎到胜利和进度的时候，玩家几乎都在可以过白板船体的时候就过去了)所以，什么对你来说更重要?去玩一艘配置合理的KGV?还是一艘8级的只是挂了名的KGV?:)当她们按照我们之前放出的预览图出现在科技树中的时候你就可以得到真正的KGV和之前的“理想的”KGV。(提醒一下：在正式放出前什么都是不确定的—你还记得二线日驱和毛驱在放出前不久还改过)

Subquestion1:

I thoroughly disagree with this.

KGV can easily work at T8, just buff her firepower. I admit she is in an awkward position, but surely small buffs to KGV firepower, to allow Nelson in at T7 is better, than Nerfing KGV to T7, and adding a paper ship?

I do not believe you. Nelson is one of THE iconic ships of the RN, it is clear that money is the motivator for making her Premium. Why on earth would Nelson be a stumbling block?

I'm really disappointed to have this confirmed. I was really excited from OBT about RN BB's, and in the current state, it looks awful.

Missing out on Historic Ships, for "smooth progression". Wat.

Steel Ocean is looking more and more promising.Subquestion2:

Q:I understand the logic. But why not make a 14" KGV work at T8 then?

How about make Monarch Premium, or a BB line split?

If WG are so insistent about having a 15" ship at T8, where is HMS Vanguard?

A(Tuccy):the issue with "making KGV work at VIII" for one leaves an odd hole or odd progression (a complete change of style) - in that case I think we won't have to wait long to be accused of designing it that way to force you to reskill captains all the time :) And I am also afraid Forum and Reddit community vastly downplays the player comfort issue - which goes hand in hand with predictability. Like it or not, a large portion of players does not go into detailed stat crunching and do not really like too many style somersaults in one branch ;)

As fro boosting KGV to fit Tier VIII, it then also spawns the question: What do you want to have? Do you want to have KGV... Or do you want to have a ship with KGV name and model, but with guns behaving like as if they are firing bigger caliber shells to compensate? And why then call it KGV? I mean it is kinda like trying to boost the Town class to fit Tier X so that we do not have to have Minotaur there (or, on the other hand, nerfing Farragut to fit Tier V so that we do not have to have the Destroyer Leader project from 1919 there) - certainly doable, but maybe not really worth the hassle...

Generally for me, KGV as Tier VII works even in context - she was, after all, built to a strict weight limit and thus "nerfed" on design from the ideal ships the Navy wanted... Let's call it Tier 7.5, but... With less twisting needed to get her to VII (esp. as there is a more than viable VIII option). I mean... Would you think a 3x3 14" North Carolina would be a workable and comfortable Tier VIII? ;)

(接上一个问题)追问1：我完全不同意你的观点。KGV在8级也可以，只要buff火力就行了，我承认她现在的位置很尴尬，但是略微buff一下KGV的火力，然后把Nelson放到7级不是显然比把KGV nerf以后放到T7，然后在加一艘图纸船要好吗?我并不相信你的说法。Nelson是皇家海军的一艘标志性的舰船，很明显钱就是你们把她变成金币船的动力。Nelson怎么就会成为一个障碍了呢?我对现在确认的东西感到非常失望。我在公开测试的时候就对英战十分激动。然而现在英战看起来很糟糕。缺失了重要的历史船只是为了连贯的游戏体验。看来还是海战世界前途一片光明。

追问2：我理解你们的想法，但是为什么不把KGVbuff到T8去呢?再把Monarch作为一艘金币船或者一个分支

如果你们如此坚持8级必须要有15寸的炮，那前卫又在哪里?

A:(Tuccy)让KGV去8级这个想法会给玩家带来一个坑以及不连贯的游戏体验(完全不同的作战风格)。如果我们真那么做那我估计你们也很快就要来说我们乱设计害你们要经常重训舰长：)而且我也很担心这样一来论坛和Reddit上会有很多人一传十十传百地说我们我们不注重玩家体验。不管你喜欢与否，有很多的玩家并不会去很仔细地研究数据而且也真的不喜欢一条线里的玩法变来变去的。

至于把KGVbuff到8级这件事，这也引出了一些问题：你想要的是什么呢?你是想要KGV，还是一艘只有KGV的名字和外形，靠着大口径主炮来弥补的船?既然这样你为什么还叫她KGV呢?我觉得这就有点像我们把一艘郡级巡洋舰buff到T10那样我们就不需要Minotaur了(或者说我们可以把Farragut nerf到5级那样我们也就不需要1919年驱逐领舰计划了(Nicolas))—这当然是可行的，但是看起来真的不值得去为这种事烦恼...

对我来说，KGV显然更适合7级的环境，它毕竟也被从海军部希望的样子“锉刀”到了后来的样子以适应吨位要求。我们可以说她是7.5级船，所以她还需要一些调整来使她成为7级船(特别是她看起来不是一个的可行的8级选项的时候)。我的意思是，你觉得一艘3x3 14寸的北卡在8级会很好玩吗?;)

Now, let's have a quick overview of "nerfing" smoke thing.

The most important thing you need to know is that main driver for the change is competitive meta. By competitive I mean not only locally hosted tournaments, but also Ranked and division play (partly, yes, I know it is not pure competitive) and, what has huge value, upcoming Clan versus Clan combat. What is the problem there? The smoke meta, and even smoke + IFHE meta. It is efficient, not fun, it leaves too little space for other tactics and..hell, we don't want it to be "hide your North Carolina and IFHE Chapayev in smoke and scout for them" every battle. Actually, the whole idea is NOT to nerf smokes - it is to nerf BB in smokes and shooting crowds in smokes.

On the other hand, we don't want to harm Random battles, which are still majority. We are 100% fine with Akizuki, Fletcher or Neptune setting smoke and firing from it. We're also fine with these guys setting smoke for friendly battleship for protection/repair, but not for stealth bastion thing!

First idea would be different mechanics, but no, it's a terrible idea. Ideally, a player should learn basics in Random Battles, and then either to go to competent solo player path or to engage in some form of competitive play. The core mechanics should be the same across all modes. Thus, the smoke dispersion mechanics was chosen.

For now, judging from all feedback and tests, I can say our solution has three big issues:

1. The debuff affects solo players noticeably, when it shouldn't. Remember - we don't want to really harm smoke firing tactics for solo DDs and smoke-equipped cruisers. This is one of their core tactics, and it is good.

2. The solution does not have protection from the scenario when a passing-by BB unintentionally blows your smoke away with one salvo.

3. The solution makes competitive a little bit better, but there is still little reason to take heavy cruisers, when you can go with HE+IFHE+smoke combo, which is avaliable only with limited team line-ups.

So, what we're doing now after we decided that 1st edition shouldn't be released? We are working on the issues discovered. Actually, we do have solutions to the issues I named, and hopefully, 2nd edition will be much better and will hit the target without harming Random Battles DD and cruiser players we absolutely don't want to harm.

Cheers!