Q: Would WG considered bring New WoT MM to WoWs ?
问：WG会考虑把WOT的新357分房拿来WOWS用吗？

 

A: Not yet, but we’re interested in WoT team experience. When we fully see the results of their new MM, we’ll decide whether it is good for WoWs.
答：还没有，但是我们对WOT的团队体验很感兴趣。等我们能拿到他们的新MM的数据之后再决定这东西适不适合WOWS。

Q:
问：

1: How’s the CV rework going? Is Kaga some sort of herald about how new CVs could work (more diversivied load outs / faster torpedos)?
问：航母重制怎么样了？加贺是不是某种以后航母都会成为的样子（更多特化的飞控/更快的鱼雷？）

2: Premium ship balance: Where do you think is the tricky part in balancing premiums? New consumables or other special gameplay features?
2: 金币船的平衡: 你们认为在平衡金币船时最蛋疼的是什么地方？是新的消耗品还是说其他特殊的游戏体验？

A:
答：

For CV balancing, we’re testing new concept for USN loadouts, which actually should be LESS focused and MORE universal – what most players requested – and AP bombs for high-tier USN CVs. More balanced against IJN and more threat to BBs/
航母平衡的话，现在我们在测试一种新的美航飞控理念。大方向是让飞控变得能够适应各种情况，而不是专注于对空/火力——这也是大多数玩家一直在说的东西—还有高阶美航会有AP航弹。这样在面对日航时会更加平衡，而且也会对BB造成更大的威胁。

The tricky thing is that we support free to win concept, but players who invest money have very high expectations for their ships performance. I personally think some premiums turned out to be more powerful than needed, but so did many regular ships. It is impossible to reach 100% accurate equality. Player skill is also an issue (again, it counts for regular ships too). I guess you understand the difference between skillful and not skillful Atlanta.
蛋疼的地方是我们支持“F2W”而不是“P2W”这个理念，但是很多花了钱的玩家对于他们所购买的金币船有着很高的期望值。我个人认为很多金币船比我们当时设计的要强，但是不少银币船也是一样。不可能做到完全平衡的。玩家个人的水平也是个问题（银币船也是同理）。我觉得你能理解高玩开的和菜鸡开的亚特兰大的区别。

Q: Last QnA I asked about the Indianapolis and how it needs some love in the concealment and rate of fire department. You said you would look into her and see if she needs a buff. This is after taking Lo Yang into account, which I mentioned previously which you have since buffed on the PTS.
问：上次我问过你印第安纳波利斯需要一些银币和射速方面的buff。你说好的会看一下。这是在洛阳之后的事情了，但是洛阳在测试服上已经Buff了。

A: Lo Yang needed some love as detailed research has shown. For Indianapolis, for now, I don’t see any strong argument for a buff.
答：在仔细研究以后我们发现洛阳的确是需要一点Buff。至于印第安纳波利斯的话现在并没有什么强有力的证据表明她需要Buff。

Q: How is Belfast Balanced? Are you going to remove the useless “special” modules anytime soon? like Spotter,Def AA mod for example.
问：你说贝尔法斯特平衡好了？你们什么时候移除那些没用的“特殊”插件，比如水侦和防空什么的。

A: She is very strong in the right scenarios and with the right application. We’re fine with it. No.
答：她现在在合适的情况以及正确使用的情况下很强的。我们很满意。不会移除。

Q: Is it an intended Feature of Kaga to be able to delete any equal Tier BB with it’s 12 TBDs? It has the same alphastrike as Taiho, but faces ships two entire tiers lower.
问：加贺能够用12个TB随便干翻同级BB就是加贺的特色是吗？她的伤害和大凤一样，但是面对的船却低了两级。

A: No, because there’s no such feature. Her squishy planes are her balancing factor.
答：不啊，根本没这种特色。她那纸糊的飞机就是平衡点。

Q: Regarding the Hood, why does her shells have less Krupp (therefore, less AP penetration) than the Warspite?
问：为什么胡德的K值比厌战的要低（AP穿深更低）？

A: These are different shells. Hood has better angles and special fuse setup. So the answer is: for better balance.
答：炮弹不一样。胡德的角度更好，而且印信也是特殊设计的。所以答案只有一个：为了平衡。

Q: Is there a chance in the (far-off) future for a pan-South American and/or pan-European researchable tech tree?
问：在遥远的未来有没有可能会推出泛南美或者/以及泛欧洲的银币线？

A: There is always a chance. Even for Vatican nuclear-space-laser sumbarines. Theoretically. Sorry, but I really cannot comment on such questions.
答：一切皆有可能。说不定还会推出梵蒂冈海军的核子空间激光潜艇。当然了，我不能说太多。

Q:
问：

1.Why does the entire line of US DD’s from Farragut onwards (and every other ship with the 5″/38 like Atlanta and Lo Yang) get a .03 second AP fuse while every other line of DD’s and cruisers with small caliber guns get a .01 second fuse?
With these fuses you’ll overpen the Khab in a knifefight, overpen BB bows and while its a situation you’ll never encounter in a real battle its even possible to overpen the citadels on cruisers with 76mm belts at extremely close range.
1. 为什么从法拉格特开始的所有美国驱逐舰（以及其他使用5”/38主炮的船，比如亚特兰的和洛阳）的AP印信是0.03秒，而所有其他驱逐和巡洋舰的小口径AP的印信都是0.01秒？
这种印信会导致在近战时过穿哈巴罗夫斯克，过穿BB的舰艏，以及在极近距离上（几乎不可能在实战中发生的）过穿巡洋舰的76mm的装甲区。

2.Every single main battery gun from 150-152MM has a .01 second HE fuse instead of the .001 fuse everything else has but this does not apply to 150MM secondaries firing HE.
Likewise every 15″ gun in-game with the exception of Bayern has a .03 second HE fuse.
Are these intentional?
Do these longer HE fuses do anything?
2. 游戏中所有150~152mm口径的主炮的HE引信都是0.01秒，而不是其他任何HE引信的0.01秒，但是150mm口径的副炮的HE又不受到这个规则的影响。
另外游戏中除了巴伐利亚以外的所有15”主炮的HE的引信都是0.03秒的。
这是故意为之的吗？

A:
答：

Because legacy settings. You are very nice in bringing this to my attention. Thank you. We will re-address these settings and fix them. There is no reason in current balance for these longer fuse settings.
这是以前的设定了。我们会解决这些问题的。现在的平衡条件下再去使用这些更长的AP引信是没有道理的。

Fuse time for HE is a legacy setting. Don’t bother, it does not affect anything.
HE引信时间是以前的东西了。现在没有任何影响。

Q: Any possibility to buff Atlanta? Comparing it to Flint the atlanta is just hugely inferior. I get that Flint has smoke and Atlanta has radar but why does the flint also get 9.2km torps while Atlanta has pitiful 4.5km?
问：有计划Buff下亚特兰大吗？现在比起弗林特的话亚特兰大简直是太差了。我能理解弗林特可以拉烟，亚特兰大有水听，但是为什么弗林特的鱼雷射程是9.2km而亚特兰的的就是一坨4.5km的东西？

A: Not planned, no reason to do that. If you think the Flint is THAT good, well, it is there to be earned in Ranked. Buffing Atlanta torps would mostly harm less skilled players, who would broad-side more often in the end.
答：没有，因为没有理由。如果你认为弗林特那么强的话，嘛，你打天梯你也有。Buff亚特兰大的鱼雷可能会伤害到那些水平比较差的玩家，因为这样会让他们更多的暴露自己的船侧。

Q:
问：

1. I wanna ask about the sequentional firemode. How is the timeing defined between 2 main batterie shots?
1. 想问下连发开火的事情，连发之间的时间差是怎么定的？

2: Is there a tutorial for CVs on the way?
2. 什么时候推出航母教程？

A:
答：

1.The delay is fixed global. 0.3 secs.
1. 延迟是固定的，0.3秒。

2.I hope we’ll do it when we’re done with basic tutorial through personal offers – if we see it’s efficient.
2. 估计要在我们做完个人折扣系统后的教程才能有时间弄—如果我们觉得这样就可以了的话。

Q: How do you plan on reducing the Battleship population in the game? As I see it either cruisers tier 7 and up need some serious help surviving, a battleship limit per team is in order or battleships need some serious nerfs to either survivability or firepower to give cruisers a chance at surviving and making gameplay more dynamic. I personally feel cruisers are being made obsolete by the latest additions to battleships like Hydroacoustic Search, Defensive Fire and Radar, giving battleships cruiser utility in addition to the best survivability and firepower in the game? Is there any plan to address this? I would be strongly in favor of removing all consumables from battleships that aren’t Damage Control, Repair Party and Catapult Fighters/Spotting Aircraft to give cruisers their utility back as I personally do not believe that a ship that can survive the best, deal the most damage and support it’s team with utlity skills like radar can even remotely be considered balanced.
问：你们打算怎么解决游戏中过剩的战舰数量？我觉得要么Buff一下7级以上巡洋舰的生存能力，或者限制每队的战舰数量，或者大幅度削弱战舰的生存/火力来给巡洋舰挤出更大的生存空间。我觉得现在巡洋舰由于最近战舰们的新玩具（水听，对空弹幕，雷达）等等已经变得没有用了。有计划解决这个吗？我觉得是不是应该移除掉战舰们除了损管/修理/水战/水侦以外的消耗品来让巡洋舰找回它们万金油的角色。我觉得一艘能够生存最好，输出最高，还能用各种东西辅助团队（雷达等等）的船和平衡这两个字一点都挂不上钩。

A: Direct and global BB nerf is an option, but not desirable, due to obvious outrage and many other issues (like nerfing/not nerfing premium BBs). Buffing underperforming cruisers and destroyers and improving carriers seems like a better option for now. As you know, we’ve done a lot for cruisers recently (IFHE, USN buff, KM upcoming buff), but CVs tweaks were missing. Fortunately, we’re getting to them now. We plan to test new type of bombs – armor piercing – for mid-high tier USN carriers. Such weapon would pose more threat to BBs, especially to camping ones (easy to hit and no deck  inclination / dodging), and pose little threat to other classes due to lots of overpens.
答：直接对战舰或者对战舰船型进行削弱是可以的，但肯定不能这么做，因为首先会导致玩家暴动，还有其他很多问题（要不要削弱金币战舰之类的）。现在的另一个方案是Buff那些数据比较差的巡洋舰和驱逐舰，当然进一步强化航母好像看起来更好。你也知道，我们最近对巡洋舰做出了很多改动（APHE，美巡Buff，接下来的德巡Buff），但是一直没做CV改动。当然现在已经在着手准备了。我们准备给美航加入AP航弹。这种炸弹对于BB的威胁更大，尤其是那些蹲坑的BB们（躲不开），而且对其它船种由于大量过穿的原因也没什么威胁。

Q: Is there any way for people who missed the Arppegio collaboration to get ARP ships in the future….. If not, then when is the HSF ships coming? Any plans for a kancolle collaboration in the far future?
问：那些错过了苍蓝联动的玩家以后还能拿到苍蓝船吗？如果不能的话，高校舰队的联动什么时候出啊？以后会不会有舰娘相关的联动？

A: ARP is closed for now due to contract end. We legally cannot distribute them now. HSF is in development.
答：苍蓝没了，我们合同到期了。现在再继续发放苍蓝船是不合法的。高校舰队在搞了。

 

Some explanations about the penetration mechanic in relationship to the changes for German guns by developer BadPreacher.
另外还有一些BadPreacher解释的和德国主炮有关的穿深机制

Let us start with HE. The penetration is computed according to the 1/6 or 1/4 caliber rules, rounding to the nearest whole number. The resulting number is the armor thickness that the HE shell cannot penetrate. For example, for a 152mm HE shell we get approximately 25.334 (152/6), which rounds to 25, meaning that 25mm will not be penetrated, but 24mm or thinner will be.
先说HE吧。HE的穿深是由1/4或者1/6口径决定的，然后向最接近的整数取整。得到的数据就是HE无法击穿的装甲厚度。举个栗子吧，152mm的HE弹的计算结果是25.334（152/6）然后取整到25，意味着25mm的装甲击穿不了但是可以击穿24mm或者更薄的装甲。

The 1/4 rule in 0.6.6 for German guns applies as follows:
0.6.6中的德国主炮的1/4规则是这样的：

1. Main battery: all battleships and cruisers of tiers 4-10,
1. 主炮：所有4~10级的战舰和巡洋舰（适用1/4规则）

2. Secondaries of 128mm and 150mm caliber: all battleships of tiers 7-10, and cruisers Roon and Graf Spee.
2. 128mm以及150mm口径的副炮：所有7~10级的战舰，还有鲁恩和斯佩伯爵。

Turning to the AP. The penetration is computed according to the 14.3 rule, without rounding. Divide the gun caliber by 14.3. A bounce cannot occur if the result exceeds the thickness of the armor. The check for penetration accounts for the impact angle (normalization), so that the normalized line-of-sight thickness of amour applies. Consequently, even if the shell did not bounce it may fail to penetrate the armor.
再说AP。AP的穿深是根据14.3规则来判定击穿的，而且不会取整。首先拿主炮口径/14.3.如果得到的数据大于装甲厚度则不会发生跳弹。至于击穿与否要再进行入射角（转正）的检测，所有这就会牵涉到水平方向上的装甲厚度（倾斜状态下的装甲厚度更大等等）。所有就算AP弹没有被跳弹，也有可能无法击穿。