Source:https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/10/26/wows-qa-26th-october-2016/
来源↗
Q1: Why RN so late?
问：为什么这么晚才出英国？
A1: Cost and ease of development (easier access to blueprints and easier balance). USN and IJN also seemed natural fit for first two factions.
答：是从开发的费用和简单度上来考虑的（更容易拿到图纸，更容易平衡）。而且首发的两个国家很自然的就决定是美国和日本了。
Q2: RN CA subline branch? Why choose CL?
问：会有英国重巡线吗？为什么选择推出轻巡线？
A2: Yes/probably. Chose CL due to prevalence in CL designs in RN (enough for two trees) and RN paper CA designs would look out of place due to late 20s origin of design studies in addition to weird progression of 30s IRL treaty cruisers -> mid 20s design study paper ship.
答：大概会有吧。选择轻巡线的原因是英国人设计了很多轻巡（足够出两条线），而且英国图纸重巡的问题是他们有点出戏，因为不仅有20年代时候的设计学，还有30年代的那些条约重巡，最后又会走回到20年代中期的图纸船。
Q3: What were you not happy about RN CL ver 1?
问：你们为什么对初版的英巡感到不满意？
A3: Many things. If only one problem, would’ve not delayed it for so long. (1) They were difficult to play, this is still the case. (2) They were unfun to play against mostly HE/Smoke combo
答：很多方面的原因。如果只是一个问题的话就不会拖这么长时间了。（1）玩起来很难，到现在了还是这样。（2）玩起来不开心，因为大部分时间要面对的都是拉烟拿高爆的情况。
Q4: Why play them?
问：那为什么要玩啊？
A4: Because they’re the RN, also if you like DD playstyle. Good rudder shift, acceleration (Minotaur accelerates in a hard rudder turn), and consumables make for interesting gameplay and teamplay (ties in with new spotting damage rewards and etc.). Semi-Armor piercing shells fits with enhanced AP shell given in game. Good torpedoes match IRL.
答：因为是英巡啊，而且如果你很喜欢DD的那种游戏方式的话也不错。转舵很好，加速（米诺陶在转弯的时候是会加速的），而且消耗品的出现使得它们对团队的贡献和游戏体验都很好（和新的点亮伤害机制有关），半穿甲弹在游戏中也用强化过的AP来体现了。而且鱼雷也很好。
Q5: No HE? What makes SAP good against armor?
问：没HE？半穿甲弹为什么对抗装甲很好？
A5: Good pen abilities, and good arcs at close range (I think they’re implying that with the consumables fit, you can be fairly aggressive to close to said 8-9km ranges. The shells also have very good normalization and dual settings (on their fuses) help against different targets. Short fuse makes SAP work like HE against DD, on more heavily armored targets, the detonating threshold is similar to normal AP shells so citadels will be possible. Very heavily armored targets….shoot bow, stern, and superstructures. Very good plunging fire against CAs.
答：击穿能力很强，而且近距离的弹道很好（他们的意思是有不同消耗品的情况下可以在8~9公里的距离上猛烈进攻）。炮弹的转正很好，而且有两种可设置的雷管让它们在面对不同目标时有这不同的表现。较短的印信会让半穿甲弹在攻击DD时变得更像HE，而在面对厚装甲目标时，起爆阈值就和一般的AP很像了，所以是可以打出装甲区的。至于那些装甲超厚的目标嘛……就打打舰艏，舰艉，建筑物什么的。曲射去洗重巡也可以。
Q6: Consumable fit? Comments?
问：不同的消耗品？再多说两句？
A6: Driving idea behind the choice of consumable choice is teamplay. I think they shout out to Flamu’s Belfast video as THE closest to their vision of how these ships are to be played. Shouldn’t be to weak against planes even w/o Def AA (good maneuverability)
答：在不同的消耗品选择的背后就是团队合作了。他们认为Flamu的贝尔法斯特的视频的玩法是最贴近开发团队的想法的。就算在没有对空弹幕的情况下也应该不怵飞机（机动性很好）
Q7: CLs are squishy and you really can’t just add armor where they didn’t exist as buffs. How did you mitigate?
问：轻巡们就是脆的不行，而且你们也没办法给他们糊上两层不存在的装甲板来buff他们。你们是如何解决这个问题的？
A7: tl;dr gave the ships tools to actively defend (mobility is armor, hydro/radar to know where enemies are, smoke to gtfo, if hit heal )
答：总而言之就是给他们加上很多可以用来防御的工具（靠机动吃饭，水听和雷达来探明敌人的位置，一旦被发现了就拉烟跑路，被打了就修）
Q8: Are the citadel difficult to hit they seem low in the water?
问：装甲区好像在水下很多，那是不是打起来很困难？
A8: Not really. The citadels are still fairly high (especially compared to USN designs Worchesters vs Z4A/Minotaur). Heal that repairs citadels should mitigate. Summary: only skilled captains need apply upper tiers. Low-mid tiers are forgivable by default.
答：并不是。装甲区还是挺高的（尤其是用米诺陶和伍斯特对比的话）。而且英国的修理小组可以修理对装甲区造成的伤害也可以在一定程度上减缓这个问题。总结就是：高阶船需要经验丰富的玩家去操作。中低级的话是可以原谅的。