Q:Hi, can I ask about the logic in IJN premiums lately? Many are sister ships of tech tree ships, but they appear in 'stock' form one tier lower (i.e. Mutsu, Ashitaka, Musashi). I can't help but notice that the IJN seems to be getting this very often, meanwhile other nations have sister ships in the same tier (Missouri, upcoming Duke of York, Tirpitz and Scharnhorst). The IJN also have other ship classes or sisters with equivalent refits that can be balanced to the same tier, so why not release those instead? Perhaps there are other plans for the ships that did exist?

A:Hello!

I'd say, it is not some deliberate strategy, but rather a coincidence. While Musashi was a pretty popular request, Mutsu and Ashitaka are the result of us having spare hulls (basically, ship models), and willing to put them into use. Actually, the former New Mexico stock hull could have a new life as well. We do not plan to specifically continue with such ships for IJN, and will try to make IJN premium fleet generally more diverse.

Q:Hi，我能问一问最近的日本金币船的问题吗?很多都是科技线船的同型船，但是都是以白板形态出现在低一级的位置上(比如说Mutsu, Ashitaka, Musashi)我不可避免地注意到这在日系船里很常见，而其他国家都是同型舰都处于同级的位置(Missouri, 之后要出的Duke of York, Tirpitz 和 Scharnhorst)日系船也有其他船拥有合适的改装，使她们可以胜任同级的位置，那为什么不实装她们呢?难道说对这些船还有其他的计划?

A:你好!

我想说的是，这不是什么有意而为之的策略，这只是一个巧合而已。尽管Musashi是一个很受欢迎的要求，但是Mutsu和Ashitaka的出现只是因为我们有闲置的船体(船只模型)，而且我们想把它们投入使用。事实上以前的New Mexico的白板船体也可以像这样重获新生。我们不打算继续特意给日系加这样的金币船，而是让日系金币船变得更加多样

Q:Since you didn't answer it last time i will just post it again.

Hey! i have 2 camo related questions. First, any chance of adding the second colour option that you get whit the Yamamoto collection to premium camoes as well, like Zao or Yamato's premium camo. Second question is regarding North Carolina's premium camo, so when i bought it i really loved the look it had on the A hull, but when i finally went and upgraded the camo changed to another completely different skin. Any possibility to let you change so you can get the A hull camo on the B hull?

A:Hey. Sorry for not replying last time, but I'm happy to communicate now!

So...

1.You know, yes, there is a chance. The mechanics is not here, because permanent camos work a bit differently from regular ones in terms of their texture application, so adding customization option requires a lot of additional work - hence, it was not present initially. But as we see, overall color customization is quite a thing for many players, so implementing it for permanent camos sounds reasonable. We will try to do it, probably in the beginning of 2018.

2.Sorry, I don't think so, and 2 skins per 1 camo is more a legacy thing.

Q:既然你上次没有回答那我再问一次

我有两个关于涂装的问题

1.以后会不会给56收藏的金币涂装加上第二种颜色的选项，就像Zao和Yamato的金币涂装一样。

2.关于北卡的涂装问题。我买了涂装的时候我真的相当喜欢A船体上的那种涂装，但是我弄出完全体的时候这涂装就变成了另一个样子。以后我们让A船体的涂装也可以用在B船体上吗?

A:Hey!抱歉上次没有回答，但是这次我相当愿意和你聊聊

那么......

1.是的，当然有机会。这个机制并不一样，因为金币涂装和普通涂装的区别在于材质处理上。所以加入定制系统要花费很多额外的工作——所以说这不是目前的主要任务。但是我们也知道，颜色的定制对很多玩家来说是件挺重要的事，所以实装这个对我们来说也是合情合理的。我们会做这个的，大概在2018年年初。

2.抱歉，我不这么认为，一个涂装有两种样子是一件很正常的事

Q:Does the presence of the Torpedo-Guy on board the cargo-vessel have anything to do with the probability to drop a supercontainer (when using TYL-containers)?

A:Hey.

Of course. But the exact relation formula is очень sekrit, and I'm not going to Gulag for indulging your curiosity!

Q:在运输船上擦鱼雷的那位兄弟和超级货柜的出现有什么联系吗?(在你选试试你的运气的时候)

A:Hey!

当然，但是具体的关系函数是очень sekrit，当然我也不想为了满足你的好奇心被丢进***。

Q:Can we get objective based achievements?

Though we are awarded medals for dealing lots of damage(like High Caliber) or tanking lots of damage(like Fireproof), I find it odd there is no comparable medal for playing the objective. It would be nice if WG rewarded certain medals for playing the objective, like take 2 caps in 1 match, taking 1 cap as a CV, earn X amount of defended ribbons, etc.

A:Good evening.

It is a nice idea, IMO, and I will relay it to the guys responsible for achievement update! Thank you!

Q:我们能得到基于作战目标的成就吗?

尽管我们现在有制造很多伤害的奖励(High Caliber)或者抗了很多伤害的奖励(Fireproof)。但是我发现没有给完成任务目标的成就。如果你们能加入那种一场比赛中占领两个区域，用CV占一个点，获得多少个防御勋带这样的成就就好了。

A:晚上好

在我看来这是好主意，我会告诉负责成就系统的人的，谢谢!

Q:感谢你一直活跃于这里。真高兴你能一直和我们进行QA

在这段对话中：

Q:为什么要增强有AA消耗品的DD的防空

A:对很多CV来说DD是首要目标，本来CV应该关注那些大型目标，但是从经济和游戏玩法上来说在开局对付DD是有利可图且有效的。所以我们希望给那些防空特化的DD一个更好的结果(首要原因)。对随机战斗里的有些DD来说AA消耗品不是什么受欢迎的选项，所以我们提高了它的作战效率以让它变得更有吸引力(第二原因)

对这个答案，我有两个问题

1.这个改动对那些容易被空中侦察发现的DD(日驱，德驱，没有AA的毛驱)。除了Akizuki, Z-46, 和Z-52外，她们在空中侦察面前还是处于弱势。这样，对她们的开局飞机点亮还是会继续下去

2.这个改动对buff了那些已经很擅长打下同级飞机的防空特化DD。事实上，正如你所知，那些有AA消耗品DD的长距离防空火力，就算没有任何升级品，也已经接近同级防空最好的BB了。这是你们预期的吗?这会导致一种极其糟糕的情况，如果说一艘CV组了两艘防空DD(Sims, Fletcher这样的)，那他们就可以直接卡死一个甚至两个点，同时在美驱烟里用接近BB水平的AA轻松打下CV的飞机。因为CV的分房只是匹配同级CV，而且也不会关注消耗品。

所以说，因为这些改动，WG扩大了有AA消耗品和没这个消耗品的DD的防空差距，这没道理啊。我确定很多人(包括我)肯定希望看到一个对DD防空水平的总体性提升，同时让那些防空特化DD可以轻松打下飞机，这样开局针对DD也会更不容易。当然这也需要去研究需要多少DPS。这也是CV重做的一个要点吗?

这引出了我心里的另一个问题：如果说这些改动是为了让CV玩家更关注那些大型目标，那么难道不应该给CV一些激励，让他们愿意开局对付BB吗?

我知道经验系统是基于相对伤害。但是更重要的是开局对付DD的影响更大，且开局对付BB的风险更大。

现在，BB开局都是抱团，血量健康，而且几乎都有CA护航。看起来你们让CV去找BB不是因为BB很有吸引力，而是因为AA特化DD不好对付。

忘了一个很重要的问题：有没有让战斗机可以攻击水面舰船的计划，我记得你们说过这个

A:你好啊

这样做的主要目标就是在AA消耗品配置和常规消耗品配置中形成更强烈的竞争。并不是说改变CV的优先目标

整体来说，你指出了一些重点。问题在于现有的CV理念中，很难在现有的理念中做到CV与相关内容的平衡。Buff没有AA消耗品的DD显然会把AA系统搞乱套(我们努力让现有的AA中的各种数据贴近历史)

事实上，有两种方法可以改变这种情况：

1.提高CV的攻击能力，让他们对付谁都可以(这样他们还真会倾向于其他目标)

2.把深水鱼雷给CV，那么他们只能靠舰爆来对付DD

两种方法都极富争议性，而且有很多问题。它们也没有解决DD被挂天灯的问题。

老实说，我们之后会(我说过好几次了)试验至少一种CV重置的方案。而且我们在这里讨论的所有问题都在待解决的清单上。我的意思是，在CV重置之后解决这些问题比现在解决更有效。因为我们的经验会从一开始就影响开发过程。

至于说战斗机与攻击机的能力交叉问题，这可以在重置之后再讨论

Q:What's the status of HMCS Haida at this point?

iChase showed the behind the scenes filming of the Naval Legends episode for Haida but we've seen or heard nothing about that for months.

pigeon_of_war said he was working on getting Haida into the game a few months ago however, the rumors on the forum said he brought Haida up to the head office in St. Petersburg and the idea didn't go over well.

Can we get a bit of insight on what's going on at least with the Naval Legends video if nothing else? Thank you in advance.

A:The status is "we're working on it". Here, I said this. Don't tell anyone. Especially Pigeon - let's make a surprise for him:)

Q:HMCS Haida(加拿大海军海达人号)怎么样了

IChase展示过海军传奇关于她的那集的制作，但我们在之后几个月里什么都没看到。Pigeon_of_war几个月前说他在努力让这艘船加入游戏。但是又有传言说这个被送到圣彼得堡以后进展非常不顺利。

我们可以知道到底是怎么回事吗?就算是海军传奇都可以。提前感谢。

A:现有的状况是“我们在开发中”在这里我要说，别告诉别人，特别是Pigeon，咱们给他来个惊喜。

Q:HISTORY QUESTIOOOOON I'M BACK ON MY NONSENSE

Could you elaborate upon the formula used to determine torpedo damage reduction numbers/TDS value? Richelieu was noted for having a very deep, elaborate TDS layout using multiple layers and a thing called ebonnite mousse, which gave her one of the best, if not the best underwater protection systems of any battleship ever put afloat, yet in-game she has a paltry 19% (according to the devblog). Similarly, King George V's TDS, which was noted for being at least passable and at best pretty good is also fairly low; on the other hand, Roma, a battleship using a system that was noted for being really bad and potentially a liability has a better TDS rating than Richelieu!

Which brings me to my question: is there a formula that's being used to determine these numbers or are they being fudged for balance reasons? If there's a formula, does it actually take an underwater protection system's layout and contents (single layer vs multiple layer liquid-filled and void compartments, mousse, crush tubes like the Pugliese system, etc) into account, or is it solely based upon system depth and holding bulkhead thickness?

Thanks for the answer in advance!

A:Helloes!

The base formula uses armor thickness and volume. It does not take the material and other peculiarities into account. So, after base TDS is calculated, we tweak it individually lore-wise and gameplay-wise. 19% is the base value, most probably it will be tweaked (improved). And yes, you're absolutely right about ebonnie mousse, that's why we will be reviewing base value.

Q:我又来问历史的问题了!

能不能跟大家说一说鱼雷减伤和鱼雷防护之间的函数关系，Richelieu被记载拥有吃水深而且可靠的鱼雷防护系统。这个系统使用了多层设计同时使用了一种叫做ebonnite mousse的系统。这使她成为了拥有当时最好的，或者说起码水下防护性最好的防护系统的战列舰。然而在游戏里减伤只有19%(看你们的blog里这么说)。同样的，KGV的鱼雷防护系统也还算不错，但是在游戏里也还是不行。另一方面，Roma，一艘鱼雷防护不怎么样的战列舰的鱼雷防护却比Richelieu还要好(我真的不知道这个人说的对不对)

这就让我思考这有一个问题：是不是有一个函数来确定这些鱼雷防护数值，还是说这就是为了平衡的?如果有这样的一个函数，它有将水下防护系统列入考虑吗(比如说多层设计这样的)，还是它只考虑深度和防雷带这些东西。

提前感谢!

A:你好啊!

基础函数使用了装甲厚度和体积，但并没有把材料和其他东西纳入考虑范围。所以在基础鱼雷防护性数据出来以后，我们会依据平衡来调整。19%是一个基础数值，我们很可能会调整(提高)。而且没错，你说的关于ebonnie mousse的那些很对。这也是为什么我们会重新关注基础数值。

Q:Hello S_O。我的问题是关于殉爆的。你以前在QA中也讲过，但是我想要更多的信息。我会尽量保证我的问题专业但是我也会吐槽这个机制，所以可能有些话说得不太好听

现在有这样一个玩家，结果就被RNG从很多血量直接给打沉了。没什么血量的时候这倒还没什么，因为横竖都是死。

如果说有一个高级玩家组队，结果一发打偏的炮弹飞了过来，没打到Gearing，打到了他，然后他就开局两分钟暴毙了，他犯的唯一的错误就是用完了殉爆旗，现在他们就要最多等18分钟才能开下一盘因为他们是组队的。他们也损失了200000的银币因为他们还什么事都没做。这就是为什么玩家不喜欢殉爆。

对我来说，这是个糟糕的设计(我不是开发组的，所以如果你不认同我的观点，我也希望你能反驳我)。在一个没有重生，维修要花钱的游戏里，这种靠RNG就可以把一个没出什么错的玩家干掉的设计对我，以及其他顶级军团玩家来说都是一个糟糕的设计。

你们也提到了殉爆对游戏设计来说是必需的，我还真高兴你会这样想。对其他很多人，包括我，都觉得殉爆是不是什么好玩的事，这只会因为把游戏变成掷骰子一样而让玩家恼火。

以前你也说过：“我们收集了一些要求，甚至有说被殉爆气的退坑的。但是没什么能真的证明这让玩家怎么不高兴了。”

玩家还会继续玩因为没有什么替代的游戏了，但是一个在游戏里的能因为RNG一下把你干掉这样的机制肯定让玩家不舒服。我觉得如果你们移除这个机制那很多玩家都会愿意在游戏里花更多的钱，因为这是绝大多数人想要的(也许你们也可以把它改成少部分的血量)。因为它发生的次数不多，就算是那些真的想保留这个机制的也不会去留恋它，但是这就代表着大家都不用去担心这个了。

如果这个语气过激了还请谅解，S_O。但是我非常关注这个机制，我也希望开发组可以理解玩家的想法且不要只关注服务器数据。

我的问题很重要，你能回答我提出的那些问题吗?

在重读一遍以后的想法：如果说把殉爆伤害变成40%-50%，并且直接摧毁那门炮。然后你还是可以得到殉爆成就，只不过你就没那么容易死了而已。这只是我的一个突发奇想而已因为我知道你们也不会轻易移除殉爆。但是我还是不喜欢那种一发打偏的炮弹结果秒了一艘船这种事。

A:你好!

我明白你的想法。我自己也想了很长时间，因为这个问题经常出现。你知道，我刚和同事讨论过这个，我们打算重新审视殉爆机制，看看能做些什么修改。我们没有准备大改但是我们想做的事移除开局初期血量健康时的殉爆。我觉得这是个不错的开始，然后拭目以待。

感谢以这样好的态度提出这个问题:)

Q:Any thought of making torpedo's require someone in the detection radius to make them visible? In other words if they are plane spotted they only remain visible if the plane is actively in range detecting them?

Many a torp launch are ruined by spotter/catapault fighter planes rendering an attack with a large cool down ruined.

A:No. Even if we considered it to be a design choice, it's too "moddable", and thus, exploitable. We avoid adding the mechanics that are easy to exploit for unfair advantage.

Q:有没有让鱼雷在玩家的探测距离内被点亮才算被发现的改动?换句话说就是如果说鱼雷被飞机点亮了以后如果飞机不继续点亮鱼雷就会灭点。

很多鱼雷发射的机会都是被水战水侦这样的给毁了。

A:不会，就算我们认为这是一个设计上的选择，但是这太容易被mod影响了，会导致不平衡。我们一直避免加入这种容易导致不公平优势的机制。

Q:With the re-shuffling of the American Cruiser lines, has there been any thought given to un-nerfing the reload speed on 5"/38 twin mounts used as secondary batteries? Since the addition of increasingly more powerful and numerous Dual Purpose guns at tier 6-7 ( as well as the upwards movement of Cleveland ) have essentially rendered the old explanations for their slow fire rate obsolete? Especially when other nations secondaries are treated with the best-case-scenario in mind, even ones with already powerful gun and torpedo armament?

It would be a nice bonus to a line that relies entirely on its guns and fighting at close-medium range, where other nations have powerful torpedo batteries.

On that note, is there any reason not to give Colorado the Maryland hull, now that Lyon is entering the game with incredibly powerful Dual Purpose AA/secondaries, which totally outstrips the aged and powercrept American tier 7 in terms of both surface and Anti-Air lethality? It seems counter-intuitive that what-if refits for ships that were never built are allowed to be downright superior to real ships that are left languishing, because the wartime refits THEY received are deemed "too powerful" for some nebulous reason?

A:Heya.

Right now we don't consider any cruiser to have really viable secondaries; and I can't say it's really good for the game to have such ships. So, with downgrading, there could be changes, but I wouldn't expect too much in terms of secondaries.

Q:美巡分线之后，有没有计划去把127双联装炮(副炮)的射速给改回来?因为现在在6-7级有了越来越多，越来越强的高平两用炮(而且Cleveland要去8级)，它们难道不使那些对127副炮的低射速的解释过时了吗?特别是还有其他国家的有些船有好的主炮还带了鱼雷，副炮对她们来说只是“理想状态下有用”?

在其他国家的船可以用鱼雷的情况下，这对一条完全靠炮输出，中近距离战斗的线来说是一个不错的提升。

在这个问题的基础上，为什么不给Colorado一个Maryland的船体，现在Lyon要加入游戏了，这船有很强的高平两用炮。在对空能力和输出能力上都碾压了美战7级。图纸船比史实船还要强，这难道不有点反常理吗?还是因为史实船在战争中接受的改造你们觉得“太强了”?

A:Heya!我们现在认为巡洋舰都没有很强的副炮，而且我也不觉得有很强副炮的巡洋舰对游戏有什么好处。所以船降级肯定会有改动，但一般来说副炮是不会改的。

Q:Hello. You said that Lesta is going to do a rebalance of CVs, but I'm really interested in the situation with some really old ships in WoWs. These ships are not really interesting to play at the moment and even though their stats are not that bad they still worse than others. One of the best examples is Izumo and Shimakaze. After plenty of changes in our game these japanese ships became boring and uncomfortable in most of the cases. I know a simple answer that sounds like "the stats of these ships are ok so no changes required", but it's not what I actually wait for.

A:This simple answer here is almost correct. These ships are widely played, they perform well...why tweak them instead of focusing on the ships that really underperform or overperfom, or on the entire new line we're producing? Sorry, but "interesting" is too subjective. I mean, if they are not interesting for you, try others.

That said, we're going to test some interesting new stuff for Shimakaze in the near future ;)

Q:你好啊。你之前说Lesta要进行CV重置，但是我更关心的是一些老船的情况。这些船玩起来不算有趣，尽管数据没那么差但她们还是比其他船差。最好的例子就是Izumo和Shimakaze。在经历了很多改动后日系船变得无聊且体验差。我知道那种“这些船的数据还可以所以没什么需要改的”这样的答案，但这真不是我想要的

A:你那个答案在这里几乎是对的。这些船玩的人很多，她们的表现也.....还好。为什么不去关注那些表现不好或者表现太好的船呢，或者是我们在开发的新线?抱歉，但是“有趣”这个实在是太主观了。我的意思是，如果她们对你来说不算有趣，你可以去试试别的。

当然，我们之后是准备在Shimakaze上测试一些新的而且很有趣的东西:)

Q:Hello, I'd like to know how many Belfasts, Kutuzovs and Perths were returned during 0.6.12.

A:Nice try:) No, I won't tell you these numbers. However, I will gladly tell you the percentage of returned ships (RU, NA, EU, ASIA total):

Belfast: 5,2% Kutuzov: 5,7% Perth: 6,6%

Of course we don't know the exact reason each player had to return these ships. But here you are.

Q:你好，我想知道在0.6.12有多少的Belfast, Kutuzov和Perth被退款了

A:好问题:) 我不会给你数字但我可以给你百分比(俄服，美服，欧服和亚服总数)：Belfast: 5,2% Kutuzov: 5,7% Perth: 6,6%

当然我们也不知道每个玩家退款的原因，但是这就是你要的

Q:Can we get an animation of penetration\bounce\shatter of shell on demand (option in settings or key press) a la War Thunder Ground Force....

It would be interested what did we hit and score citadel or why didn't we get the citadel....:)

A:I'm afraid for now, we can't. The major features, unlike minor tweaks, are normally planned ahead, and the reason to change the plans (and to undermine some production) should be very big. This is not the case, and honestly, if we speak about ballistics, we'd rather do some ballistics/ribbon polishing to improve the balance and fix some random strange stuff - and actually, we're working on it.

Q:以后有没有可选择的弹药击穿/跳弹/碎弹的动画效果(设置里或者按键调整)，像WT的一样......(我们打出了一堆装甲区和我们没打出装甲区这样的肯定很有意思)

A:我怕现在是不可能的。不像小的调整那样，主要的特效一般在很久之前就已经计划好了。改变计划(废除某些计划)的原因肯定也不会是什么小原因。老实说，如果说弹道，我们更希望去优化弹道和勋带来提升游戏平衡和修复bug——事实上我们也就在那么做。

Q:Hey Phil,

Special Radar Upgrades are mandatory for Clan Battles. But many people have not been Rank 2 in that one season. Chances of getting the right upgrade in a Supercontainer are very low. How about a short campaign, to aquire one of each for everybody?

A:So, NOW they ARE good, aren't they?:)

On a serious note, that's a good point. I cannot promise you anything, but I will speak with the in-game events team, try to learn what's up, as these upgrades got more value in players' opinion, and probably, can be used a bit - just a bit, as we don't want to devalue them - more.

Q:Hey Phil,

雷达的特殊升级品对排位来说必不可少。但是那个赛季没有到R2的玩家得到它的概率就小得多。一个能让大家都得到每个特殊消耗品各一个的短战役如何?

A:所以说，这些东西目前不错，是吗?:)

不开玩笑了，这个提议不错。我不能保证什么，但是我会找游戏内活动的团队来讨论这件事。因为这些升级品对你们来说越来越重要，那么也许，可以稍微这样，稍微，因为我们也不想因为数量太多而让它们贬值。

Q:Clear sky at tier 8 and above are pretty much as hard to get as a solo warrior (yet you need them for a mission in 2 campaigns). Can we expect a reasonable requirement for this achievement any time soon ? Or are you happy with it being one of the rarest medal (at 8+) ?

What about the Juliet Yankee Bissotwo (-20% flooding duration). Flooding ticks for 2 minutes, yet the DCP can easily be lower than 90 seconds, making this consumable pointless. Maybe change it so that it lowers the flooding damage taken by 20%, helping out until DCP is ready again ?!

A:We will rework Clear Sky, dear WarlockFromMars. You're totally right, it needs some change, and sorry for it taking so long.

Q:Clear Sky在8级及以上和Solo warrior一样难拿(然而战役里还有任务要你拿Clear Sky)。这个成就的要求会进行改动吗?还是你对这个8级以上很罕见的成就很满意?

然后Juliet Yankee Bissotwo这面旗(-20%的进水时间)。进水持续时间是两分钟，而损管cd可以很轻松地压到90s以内，这就让这个消耗品没什么意思了。能不能把效果改成减进水伤害20%，帮玩家撑到损管再次可用

A:我们会重做Clear Sky的。你说的一点没错，是要进行一些改动，抱歉花了那么长时间。

Q:When do you plan to fix this, by your words, "quite rare" bug? Apparently it's been around about forever. And you've known about it for that long. Yet I see examples in every game I play. I am also able to reproduce it with the exact circumstances, and I've handed it to you on a silver platter. Yet despite all these steps, and your extensive knowledge of it, it has not yet been fixed.

So, when do you plan to fix the fact that AP shells often do more damage than they should?

A:I said that several times, and sorry that you've missed it - the ballistics will be updated somewhere mid-2018 - maybe a little earlier - and not only strange cases of damage & ribbons, but also other issues, like BB AP -> DD damage. I won't give you any when, because messing with ballistics is not a quick thing, and it my take longer (or shorter, if we're very lucky) than we currently predict. As for your help and cooperation - thank you, the data indeed was sent directly to Game Logic guys, who play the main part in these possible update.

Q:BB的AP弹道修改。你们到底准备什么时候修复你们这个所谓的“相当罕见的bug”?这已经说了很长时间了。你们也不是第一天知道这件事了。我已经可以用一些方法来避免这个的发生了，我也告诉了你们方法。但是有了这些方法，有了你们的相关知识，这东西还是没给修复。

那么你们是准备什么时候修复这个AP弹造成过多不正常伤害的问题

A:我已经说过好几回了，很抱歉你没有注意到。弹道系统会在2018年年中出来，可能也会早一点。这也不只是什么伤害/勋带问题，这是另一个问题，就像BB的AP对DD的伤害。我没法告诉你具体时间因为处理弹道是件很耗时间的事，而且有可能超出(如果我们走运可能会低于)我们的预期时间。至于你的帮助——非常感谢，这些数据已经给了游戏设计人员，就是专门负责这个的人。

Q:will we get the Musashi this year? is it for freexp? is the USS Salem Ranked reward for 7x R1 ?

A:Sorry, no comments on these:) It's a secret, and they're watching me.

Q:Musashi今年会出吗?是不是通过全局获得? USS Salem是不是7次R1的奖品?

A:抱歉，这我就不能说了:)这是秘密，他们也在盯着我。

Q:Hi Sub!

1.When will Hard difficulty be added to scenario battles? It could be something as simple as x3 HP for all enemy ships. For clans that tackle these missions together, a 5 star can be achieved on the first attempt and there is little to no value in re-playing it afterwards.

2.I am experiencing major FPS issues if and only if I am playing as CV. I have a very high quality computer and FPS is excellent normally, but when I am in a CV my FPS drops to around 10. Is this a personal problem or a server wide problem? If its the latter, when will it be fixed?

3.Is Tone still on hold? Is she in a super low priority on the to do list? I have been waiting to throw my wallet at it.

4.Since Tears of the Desert Epicenter is not favored by popular opinion, are there plans to reduce the frequency of it appearing much like what was done to Ocean?

5.Will there be any cross spawns (like the original hot spot back in CBT) and/or unique spawns (like in CW) ever be implemented in random battles?

As always these FAQ sessions are highly appreciated. Cheers!

A:Heya!

1.I cannot tell you that, because we're still not sure about several design choices.

2.I'm not aware of mass issue you describe, but in any case you should contact Customer Support. Yes, sometimes they take time, but they're the best guys to solve such issue anyways. If you have real problems with them after you submit your case, please PM me.

3.She is still on hold.

4.We will see about it

5.Same.

Cheers, and thank you too, for reading and asking.

Q:Hi Sub!

1.什么时候会出高难度的场景战斗?这完全可以像把所有的敌方船只的血量都变成3倍那样简单。对一个军团来说一起打，第一次就5星了，那后面也没什么意思继续打了

2.我最近玩CV的时候遇到了FPS上的一些问题。我的电脑配置没问题而且平时FPS也很正常，但是玩CV的时候FPS就会降到10左右，这是我的问题还是游戏问题，如果是后者那什么时候会被修复

3.Tone还在排队吗?她现在是不是优先度非常低。我已经准备好买了。

4.Tears of Desert的震央模式大家都不喜欢，有没有减少这个出现频率的计划，就像那张Ocean图一样

5.会不会有不同的出生点设置加入游戏(像CBT时期的Hot Spot那张图或者军团战那样的)

感谢你的QA。Cheers!

A:Heya!

1.这我也没法告诉你，因为我们现在也在好几种设计里拿捏不定

2.我还不知道你说的那个问题，但是无论如何你都应该去联系客服中心。没错，有时候他们花的时间比较长，但他们是专业解决这种问题的。所以说如果你在联系他们以后还有问题，请私信我

3.她的确还在排队等着

4.我们会考虑的

5.一样

Cheers!也感谢你的阅读和提问。

Q:US Cruiser split: Can we expect the posts to the new ships in Devblog in the next 1-2 weeks or is it too early in development to release them?

A:Too early, dear Nanotyrann. We normally post to Dev blog when the stuff enters Supertest, not before.

Q:美巡分线：我们会不会在一两周以后就在开发者Blog上看到新船的介绍，还是现在说这个太早了?

A:太早了，hermano。我们在东西进入ST以后才会开始在开发组blog上进行介绍

Q:Hey Sub_Octavian! Thanks for another Q&A session!

Just a quick question: Will WG ever release a book with all the schematics of the ships that are present in-game? Like with a nice blurb on how modernizations for ships that required them were determined and how the ships that had to be designed from scratch (like the Zao, Hindenburg, etc.) were designed? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd greatly appreciate that! Hope I was clear enough :)、

A:Heya. I doubt it, and not because it's a bad idea (I'm not experienced in merchandise to say whether such book would be appreciated) but mostly because that would involve publishing A LOT of data we're not licensed to publish - only to use for development. Sorry.

Q:Hey Sub_Octavian!感谢另一次QA!

一个问题：你们会不会出一本关于游戏里的船的介绍的书?就像介绍一艘船的现代化改造数据如何确定以及图纸船是怎么做出来的(Zao，Hindenburg这样的)我确定肯定不只我一个人很期待那个!

A:Heya.我比较怀疑。当然不是说这不是一个好主意(我在这方面也没有什么经验，无法断定这样的书会不会收到好评)，这主要是因为这会牵扯到很多我们不被允许披露的数据——这些数据只是拿来开发的。抱歉

Q:Since we've been talking about French ships as of late:

1.What's the logic behind giving Richelieu the worse DPM at its tier, one of the lowest alpha of its tier and dispersion similar to Bismarck all at the same time?

2.What's up with Richelieu's TDS? It is widely recognized as one of the best TDS of its time period, yet it's utter trash in game.

3.If you didn't intend to add Strasbourg to the tech tree, why didn't you make it a premium ship instead of Dunkerque?

4.Can we expect to see a high tier French premium in the near future? France will get its second line soon, yet it's stuck with only T6 premiums for captain training. The Pan-Asia line has had a T8 long before its first line, and Italy is getting two soon even though their first tech tree line is a long way off.

A:1-2: Dude, we should really stop discussing WIP stuff that early. Let's NOT do it, please - this makes no sense. Such questions are the reason I doubt the Dev Blog sometimes.

3.Who told you she cannot appear as a premium at some point?

4. No comments on unannounced ships, as always.

I know these answers don't tell you a lot, and I'm sorry for that, but please consider asking some questions I can answer without breaking NDA/speculating. Cheers!

Q:看大家都在谈关于法战的事

1.为什么要给Richelieu8级最差的DPM，最糟糕的直伤以及和Bismarck差不多的Sigma

2.Richelieu的鱼雷防护系统是怎么回事。这在当时被认为是最好的系统之一，结果在游戏里就成了这样

3.如果你们不打算把Strasbourg加入科技树，那为什么不把她而是把Dunkerque变成金币船

4.以后会有高级的法国金币船吗?法国很快就会得到它的第二条线，而现在我们只能用6级船进行舰长训练。泛亚线在得到第一条线之前就已经有了一艘8级金币船。意大利在第一条线遥遥无期的时候就又快有两艘新的金币船了

A:1-2.兄弟，咱们真的别在讨论这种还在开发阶段的东西了。这真的没什么意思。这些问题也是我有时候怀疑开发组blog作用的原因。

3.谁告诉你她不会变成金币船的?

4.对没有出的船没什么可以透露的

我知道这些答案什么都没有回答。抱歉，但是请提出那些我可以回答而且不会违反保密协议的问题。Cheers!

Q:How is the skill based mm doing ? Any ETA ? It's about time those stats farming divisions by top clans will be balanced accordingly, not by sub par exp pinatas.

A:It's not doing well, because we're not going to implement it to Random PvP, and this was answered and explained a lot.

Q:基于水平的分房系统怎样了?有预期时间吗?是时候通过分房平衡那些高级军团的组队刷数据的人了，让他们碰不到玩得不太好的人。

A:这东西表现不好，因为我们不打算把它加入PVP里，这以前也解释过了

Q:Hello Sub_Octavian!

Just a few questions;

1.One of the things that has baffled quite a few of us has been choice of ships for premiums for Italy, specifically cruisers. What exactly lead to the decision for Duca degli Abruzzi being chosen over her sister, the Garibaldi, which is usually the better known sister of the class, and certainly carrying the more recognizable name?

2.Also, via the use of certain websites, it's been found that on Abruzzi's armor model the 30mm decapping belt is extended into the bows, all the way to the stem of the ship. All sources, a least that those of us in the community have at their disposal, state that the 30mm plating did not extend past the citadel. Is the existence of this extended portion in Abruzzi the result of a previously unknown source, or is it something WG chose to add as a balance decision?

3.When it comes to Roma's guns, what shells were in mind when WG was deciding on which to use for AP & HE? IRL, Italian battleships only has a pure AP shell (palla) and then a type of SAP round (granta perforante). The palla was the 884.8 kg shell originally fired at 870mps, but then lowered to 850mps, while the granta perforante was fired at 880mps. There was also a 774kg HE shell with a bursting charge of roughly 80kg under development, without a specified muzzle velocity. When Roma's data was released on the Devblog, it was a bit confusing to see the MV for AP/HE listed last 880/805 mps. Does this mean the AP shells chosen is the 824 kg GP, as opposed to the heavier Palla shells, and that the in-development HE round is being used as HE?

A:Helloes!

1.Well. Let's just say we reserved Garibaldi for some of the more distant future things.

2.I don't know about certain websites, but current armor model has this belt extended to bow (bow only, not aft) - and that is done according to Abruzzi's original blueprints we have. Sorry, but I believe, we got it right this time.

3.Roma is WIP, so mind that all stats are not final, and there is no point in discussing them in such depth. Anyways, I will relay your question, so the shells are double-checked.

Q:Hello Sub_Octavian!

只是几个问题：

1.使我们比较困惑的一件事就是意大利的金币船选择问题，特别是巡洋舰的。为什么要选Duca degli Abruzzi而不是她的姐妹舰Garibaldi，Garibaldi显然更出名。

2.还有，在看了一些网站上的介绍后，我发现Abruzzi的30mm装甲向前一直延伸至船头，向后延伸至尾舵。所有的来源里，至少是在社群里，我们都看到30mm护板没有任何延伸。这个延伸的护板是之前不知道的信息，还是你们进行的平衡处理?

3.Roma的主炮。你们是怎么计划她的HE和AP的?在现实中，意大利战列舰只有一种AP(Palla)和一种SAP(granta perforante)。Palla是一种重量为884.8km的炮弹，原定初速870m/s，但是后来被降低到了850m/s。而granta perforante的初速为880m/s。还有一种774kg，装药80kg的HE弹当时在开发中，但是没有具体的初速数据。当Roma的数据出现在开发组blog上的时候，AP和HE的880/805m/s的初速有点令人困惑。那也就是说你们AP弹用了824kg的granta perforante而不是更重的Palla，然后那个开发的HE弹被作为HE使用。

A:你好啊!

1.我们保留Garibaldi是为了以后的一些东西

2.我还不知道这些网站，但是现在的装甲模型有这条装甲带，而且延伸到了船头(只有船头，没有船尾)。而且这是按照Abruzzi的原始设计图做的。抱歉，但是我相信我们在这里没有搞错什么。

3.Roma还在制作中。所以记住这些数据还不是最终数据，现在进行这样深入的讨论也没什么意义。无论如何，我会转交你的问题，所以这些弹药会被再次检查确认。

Q:In a discussion many months ago about balancing the shima I suggested removing the stock 20km torps or at least making them not the default. At the time you said this was a good idea and would consider it, since this change never happened you guys obviously rejected it. I was just wondering if we could have a follow up on why you didn't make this change and ask if you could consider it again.

A:Hello.

Okay, as a fellow Shima admirer, let me share our current plan (very work-in-progress, subject to change or cancellation, not a promise):

1.To test 20 km DW (anti BB/CV) torpedoes with her as an option.

2.To test TRB within smoke slot as an option.

3.To change the research order as you suggest - so that 20 km torps, regardless of their specs, are not the default.

4.Consider removing 20 km torps completely (especially if DW test fail).

ETA: 2017 - early 2018.

Cheers.

Q:在一个几个月前的问题里我提议移除Shimakaze的白板20km雷，或者至少让它不是白板配置。当时你说这是个好主意，你们会考虑。既然这个改动从来就没有发生那就代表你们否决了这个。我只是在想我们能不能知道为什么你们没有这么改，还有你们愿不愿意再次思考这个

A:你好!好，作为一位Shimakaze的舰长，我可以告诉你我们现有的计划(开发中，随时可能变动)：

1.测试20km的长矛雷(对付BB和CV的)以作为一个选项

2.测试鱼雷装填助推器(和烟雾一个位置)

3.像你建议的一样改变研发顺序——那么20km雷就不会变成初始配置，无论它们的特点如何

4.考虑彻底移除20km雷(特别是长矛雷失败以后)

预计时间：2017-2018年初

Cheers!

Q:The nameplates removed from Mikasa and Ishizuchi. Why were they removed?

A:That was a version bug. We will fix it.

Q:为什么Mikasa和Ishizuchi的名牌被移除了?

A:这是个bug，我们会修复的

Q:Any word on official replays ? Any chance we get to see the after game reports of other players like in WoT ?

A:We're working on them; looks like Training Room: The Revised & Official Edition will be released first, though. But we will get to replays as well.

Q:官方的回放系统怎么样了?我们能像WOT里一样看其他玩家的战斗统计吗?

A:我们已经在做了，但是现在看起来训练房：修改后的官方版本将会先出来。但是我们到时候也会做回放的。

Q:

1.There's errors in the belt armor on British battleships from tier 7 onwards (King George V, Monarch, and Lion); specifically, they have belt armor that's slightly thicker than they actually are. To summarize, the British ordered armor in pounds per square foot. For example, the King George V's belt armor is 600 lb per square foot by magazines and 560 lb per square foot by machinery. Steel is 40.8 pounds per square foot, but in many cases for "nominal thickness", the weight of steel is rounded down to 40 pounds per square foot for simplicity, so a 600 lb per square foot armor has a "nominal" thickness of 15 inches (381 mm), but in actually was only 14.7 inches (374 mm) thick. As a result, the King George V and Monarch should have 374 mm and 349 mm belt by magazines and machinery respectively, and the Lion should have a 374 mm belt. This is documented by Norman Friedman's The British Battleships, 1906-1946, page 47., as seen here. I feel that this should be a pretty easy change, and shouldn't make too much of a difference.

2.The King George V, Monarch, and Lion citadel height is also overly simplified and too low in some areas. In summary, the engine rooms and boiler rooms should sit a bit higher than the magazines, with the boiler room poking slightly above the waterline. In game, I think this is a way to better balance the British battleships. They are currently unduly forgiving of showing broadside, and they are the most difficult ships to citadel after the German battleships. Given that one of WG's advertised weaknesses of the British tier 7+ battleship is their more vulnerable broadside, their citadel should be raised and adjusted along these lines to actually reflect that.

3.Currently, the Colorado's HP is abnormally low for her tonnage given in game. She only has 50,100 HP, while her in game tonnage is some 41,140 HP (historically she was 40,396.5 long tons in WW2 configuration), which should translate to 59,400 HP. Or, if we use the 40,396.5 ton displacement that she had historically, she would be 58,553 HP. Since the Colorado has very few advantages over the Nagato, is it possible to bring her HP up to standard?

4.The permanent camouflage that the Iowa has in game is the Missouri's, while the Iowa herself had a wholly different Measure 32/1B scheme as seen here. Is there a change that the Iowa's permanent camouflage can be updated to reflect this?

A:Hello!

1.We're fully aware of weight differences in various armor types, however, we use the standard value of 1 inch = 40 pounds. This situation is the same as with various chemical composition, homogeneous/cemented, etc, etc - we're not ready to go full realistic here, and allow some simplification. So, there are no errors here - just game conventions.

2.We will see about changing their citadel, it could theoretically be an option, but not in the near future updates. Your arguments are noted.

3.Thanks for your research. I will ask the team to re-check HP calculation for this ship, and whether there is room to change it balance-wise - if needed.

4.Thanks for this suggestion. I am not sure this will be a high priority, but I will ask the team to check this information.

Cheers!

Q:

1.7级及以上的英战的装甲带装甲有问题(KGV，Monarch和Lion)，说得明白一些，她们的装甲带装甲比她们实际的要厚一些。总的来说，英国通过每平方英尺几磅这样的单位来衡量装甲。比如说，KGV的主装甲带上，弹药库装甲厚度为600磅/平方英尺，轮机舱装甲厚度为560磅/平方英尺。钢铁是40.8磅/平方英尺，但是为了进行简化，很多情况下对于“名义厚度”的钢铁重量都会被减为40磅，所以说600磅/平方英尺的装甲的名义厚度为15英寸(381mm)但是事实上只有14.7英寸(374mm)厚。这样的结果就是KGV和Monarch应该最多只有374mm的弹药库装甲和349mm的轮机舱装甲，Lion应该只有374mm的装甲带。这摘自Norman Friedman的《The British Battlaships，1906-1946》，第47页。我觉得这个要改应该很简单，也不会造成很大的改变

2.KGV，Monarch和Lion的装甲区被过于简化了，而且某些地方的高度不够。总的来说，引擎室和锅炉舱应该比弹药库更高一些。锅炉舱的顶部稍微高出水线。在游戏里，我觉得这也是平衡英战的一种好方法。她们现在露**也不会出大问题，而且她们是继德战之后最难出装甲区的战列舰。WG曾经宣传7级及以上的英战的一大弱点就是**装甲更差，那么她们的装甲区就应该被抬升至应有的高度。

3.现在，Colorado的HP与其吨位相比不正常的低下，她只有50,100的HP，然而她的游戏中吨位达到了41,140HP(历史上，她在二战中的吨位有40,396.5长吨(1长吨=1.0160469088 公吨))，应该被换算为59,400HP。或者如果我们用40,396.5吨来计算那么血量应该是58,533HP。Colorado和Nagato相比没有多少的优点，那么以后能把她的血量提高到另一个标准吗?

4.Iowa的金币涂装事实上是Missouri的涂装，而Iowa本身就有一个完全不同的涂装。以后能不能改变Iowa的金币涂装来反映这个。

A:Hello!

1.我们已经意识到了不同装甲之间的重量差异，但是我们使用的是标准的1英寸=40磅。这个情况就和不同的化学构成，同质/粘附一样——我们还没有准备在这个地方做到完全和现实一致，允许一定程度上的简化。所以说其实没什么问题——这只是游戏里的一个惯例而已。

2.我们会关注要不要改变装甲区，理论上来说这是一个选择，但是不会很快到来。你说的我们已经记录下来了。

3.感谢你的研究，我会让团队去重新检查这艘船HP的计算与评估从游戏平衡的角度是否有改变的空间。

4.感谢这个提议。我不确定这是否优先度会很高，但是我会让团队去进行相关的研究。

Cheers!