Thanks to Reelyo for translating and for sending the questions! The next session will be organized soon.
These questions were asked by community some time ago. Recently I looked through them, chose some that are still actual and are conform to rules for questions to developers thread in Russian WoWS forum. Questions were answered by Sub_Octavian.
To other sites reposting this: please give credit to TAP.
1. Are there any plans on the Dutch navy? How does WG want to materialize the tiers of smaller navies such as the Dutch in general; limited amount of realized ships or including many concept ships to fill up the tiers?
Now we are still working with branches of major naval nations, and there is still no Royal Navy in the game. So we do not consider additional incomplete branches currently. Some ships might be introduced as premiums.
2. Why is the Russian Navy implemented before the Royal Navy? Is it for economic reasons?
(Reasons are) not exactly economical. Of course, players from RU region were waiting for Soviet Navy, but WoWS is being published in other regions as well, equally important. The idea was to add two warring nations and by various reasons USSR-Germany pair was chosen. No other “special” reasons. Royal Navy’s implementation is inevitable (Implementation of at least one branch of RN was promised for this year – cruisers).
3. Can we expect to see more statistics options in game like in World of Tanks? (Like stats for individual ships and post game results of other players after a game).
Yes. Progress on this topic will be in 0.5.10 already. Follow the news! (Patch notes for 0.5.10 were published)
4. Will there be an option for players to display the Imperial Russian Navy flag in port and/or in the tech tree? Doesn’t make sense to have the Soviet flag in the background while the ship itself flies the IRN flag. The Storozhevoi for instance was a paper project and as such was never used by the Soviets.
This option is not planned. I would describe it as “would be nice to have, but of low priority”
5. Are there plans to implement fighter strafing ability? (for attacking the ships, I presume)
Yes, we would like to implement this feature. But we have many doubts about current CV gameplay. We would like to make it more player friendly and not so one-way win or lose. And not break overall class balance in the course (of changing CV gameplay). What exactly we are planning – can’t say for now.
6. Are there chances for implementation of old fan kit’s ships (e.g. Akizuki)?
Chances are always there. Even for Kitakami. At least theoretically 
7. What are the changes in statistics of high level U.S. CVs after 0.5.3?
We do not disclose server statistics without serious cause. Discussion of American CVs is very complicated because of the great influence of chosen flight control scheme.
8. Would you consider bringing back the space battle occasionally like you did before in beta? That was great fun.
Yes, we thought about it. But if we would do something for fun we would like to make something different.
9. Is there any possibility of new paint schemes or camouflage patterns? It would be cool if you could paint different sections separately. Example: top of the turrets.
Working plans – add more permanent camouflage patterns. In perspective we want to introduce decals: identifying insignia, side numbers, smokestacks’ rings, etc. But nothing specific yet.
10. Any thoughts on decals or names on ships?
Same as 9th.
11. I had plenty of tier8 + matches recently where both sides had like 6 DDs. Don’t you think that’s to much? Have you any thoughts on that?
We think that the best ratio is about 3-4 DDs, five as the maximum. Six is definitely over the top. We continue to work on the balance, to achieve proportional class presence in battles and make all classes appealing for different players.
12. A CV subclass is mentioned to come which includes refitted BB’s but also mentioned some interesting ships too: cruiser-carrier Tone and a maybe battleship Ise too in the CV subclass. My question is if this happens are the Tone and Ise will be an unique ships gameplay wise? So basically a crusier/battleship what can launch for example a squadron of torpedo bombers?
This question is not currently at work, because of other more urgent matters.
13. Did any recent game mechanic changes affected negatively the Warspite? Or do you changed its armor effectiveness? Some players feels it is less tanky than before. And how is it performing stat-wise?
No and no. Warspite is one of the ambiguous ships in the game. She is behaving fine statistic-wise, but some players feel very uncomfortable about her. We are watching this issue closely and made some minor improvements lately. We want to enhance comfort (of her owners) while not making the ship imbalanced, or lose her “individuality”.
14. What is the fate of Buffalo and Worcester cruisers?
All I can say is that these ships sooner or later will make it to the game. We have such plans but nothing specific for the moment.
15. After the change to Expert Marksmen, are there any plans to undo the nerf to Mogami’s 155mm turret rotation and survivability? (it used to be 40 seconds traverse). 51.4 seconds is a bit too slow for a stock grind considering the range is only 13 km stock.
We would think about it but as the result of changes to Mogami, from imbalanced it evolved to normal, in balance. We do not want to compensate anything. As for choice between 155 and 203 mm – this is probably a false conception (e.g. game design decision).
16. According to this response: “The experience was positive, but we’d do it if Turkish, Dutch or Spanish players played more actively. Polish players play quite a lot, so we released Blyskawica. The same applies to the Pan-Asian ships.” . Following that way, can we expect to see some ships introduced from South America navies, like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, etc in the game, if the statistics show much activity from the playerbase of that region?
Yes, definitely.
17. Would you consider adding Hamburg as a harbor to WoWs?
That is not a question, but a direct suggestion 
. We do not have such plans.
