Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

1,450 Superb

About ramp4ge

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/15/1983
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. To expand on this, apparently cruiser crews hated float planes, too. Especially after the first battle of Guadalcanal when almost every cruiser in the formation caught fire amidships because of the airplanes stowed and their fuel stowage. Fabric-covered airplanes have doped wings, fuselages and tail surfaces and doped fabric burns. Rapidly and intensely. And even most metal planes in WWII had fabric-covered control surfaces, at the very least. That, along with spare parts, furniture, fuel, oil, ammunition for guns and flares, depth bombs and the blasting charges for the catapults were all extra flammables stored and almost never failed to actually be a detriment to the ship itself. After the first battle of Guadalcanal, crews started shoving planes overboard and purging the avgas tanks and fuel lines and filling them with nonflammable gasses, just as a general safety measure. I don't know if this was ever actually approved by CNO, but it became common practice from cruiser to cruiser.
  2. It was US protocol that the decks be cleared of all splinter hazards before the ship went into combat. This included the compliment of ship's boats. Examples: Here's New York in Feb. 1942, preparing for her first deployment to the Atlantic theater. And here she is in August '42. Notice that the boats are gone and have been replaced with rubber rafts that presented no splinter hazard. Here's another example. Brooklyn in 1939. Notice the boats stored amidships. Brooklyn again in 1943. Boats removed. Boats were convenient in peace time, but in war time they were nothing but splinter hazards. The compliment of boats was drastically reduced in wartime. This is one of my biggest contentions with the way New York is modeled ingame. Those boats that restrict the traverse of her center turret should not be there.
  3. That is aboard Boise, and it was done after the ship was heavily damaged during the Battle of Cape Esperance. Boise was credited with much more than she actually did during that battle, more as a propaganda piece than anything else. Helena's gunnery was actually much more effective than Boise's during that engagement and Helena didn't get nearly any of the credit. Boise was actually credited with more ships sank/damaged than were actually sank/damaged during the engagement. Here's another view of the same thing.
  4. Boise no Good

    That sounds like your own impatience then and that isn't anyone else's problem but your own. There isn't anything stopping people from reviewing the ship themselves a day or a week after the ship is released. If all the "average" players were interested in reviewing a ship, where are the post-release reviews from "average" players? Well, here's one right here. Ramp4ge's Average Player Review of Boise: The ship is average. Just like every other review of it thus far has said it was. I have no doubt that global statistics will show that the ship is average. There. Have a good day.
  5. Boise no Good

    Can you prove that the only reason they got in 'trouble' was because of a negative review of a ship? Because, again, we have a precedence where someone who is only really well-known because of their ship reviews harshly criticizing ships with no backlash from WarGaming. I remember one CC getting in trouble for the Graf Zeppelin review, but their 'review' was less 'review' and more hate-fueled rant about how retarded Wagaming was.
  6. Boise no Good

    When I'm buying a product I want to see what it's actually capable of. I know there will be games where it's deleted in 3 minutes because it's a cruiser in World of Warships. So that shouldn't come as any surprise. I want to see the ship performing at it's best so I can judge for myself how it will handle when I'm playing it. I may know I may not ever be able to actually push it to the extremes of it's performance envelope, but I'd rather see what it could do at the extreme of it's performance envelope than see some 44% player getting vaporized for doing dumb things and saying the ship is bad as a result. Because said 44% player will say every ship is bad and blame it on the ship, instead of actually showing what the ship is capable of. Again, you have yet to provide a single review that gives the ship a glowing endorsement. Every review I've seen calls it average. LWM's review, which is going to be the review seen by most people, says the ship is average, and breaks it down into more than just a post-game screen. If you want a baseline, wait a couple months and look at the global ship stats.
  7. Boise no Good

    So basically you're peddling a conspiracy theory on premium ship reviews and have no evidence to support it. Easily disproven by the simple fact that LWM has written reviews that have straight-up called ships garbage. And has faced no retaliation from Wargaming as a result.
  8. Boise no Good

    You're again working under the assumption that all CC and supertesters are above-average or unicum players and are insufficient to form a baseline, yet you've given absolutely no evidence to support this claim. You've also given no evidence to support the claim that the ship has been portrayed as anything but average.
  9. Boise no Good

    My "opinion" isn't really an "opinion" though. My "opinion" is that all of the people who have reviewed this ship have pretty much said the same thing - It's average. That isn't so much opinion as it is demonstrable fact. The other "opinion" seems to be that the reviews are glowing and that only the best players are playing it to make it look amazing so they sell more ships. Even though all of those reviews all claim that the ship is average. So the reviews that the other "opinion" are relying on to support their argument actually have their argument disproven by the very sources that they're relying on to prove their point...
  10. Boise no Good

    Absolutely nothing. I'd prefer a premium ship be 'average' since that's what premium ships are supposed to be. But my point was that saying something is average is in no way saying it's amazing and you should buy it. It's just saying it's average and if you like the playstyle it offers it might be worth looking at. That's pretty much what every review of it has said. And you have people in this thread that are upset because they somehow think CCs are being dishonest in their reviews. And then the guy comes out and says that to him, "Best" and "fun" are synonyms.. Which is pretty telling in and of itself...
  11. Boise no Good

    So your subjective opinion should now be taken as absolute fact? So because YOU feel that something should be THE BEST to be fun, and that the reviewers are saying that it's fun but not THE BEST, the reviewers are rating the ship above it's actual value? I don't need to. You've made your stance very clear. It's just a bad stance to hold and is demonstrably wrong. If you want a 'baseline' of how it performs with average players, wait a couple of months and look at the ships' stats and see how it's performing.
  12. Boise no Good

    Synopsis of review: Is it the best ship? No Is it a lot of fun? Yes Wow. Again, imagine my shock. That review also says it's a mehbote and in no way, shape or form makes the ship to be the best thing ever. The reviewer even says it's no Belfast, but it can be an extreme pain in the [edited]to destroyers. Again, that is not a glowing review. That is stating what every other review of the ship has stated already. The review also states that you need a high-level captain. I don't think you actually watched any of these reviews. You just looked at post-game screens and drew your own conclusions based on those.
  13. Dallas is a really good boat once you have IFHE and CE. The problem is that it absolutely relies on IFHE and CE, which means you need at least a 14-point captain to make the ship work. And nobody who's grinding this ship as their first line is going to have a 14-point captain and is going to struggle as a result.
  14. Boise no Good

    The primary review that most people have seen called it a "mehbote" You're making it sound like the CCs give glowing reviews of things that shouldn't get glowing reviews and are misleading in their evaluations of Wargaming products. Yet you have yet to offer any actual evidence to support these claims. Boise was reviewed as a mehbote, and she's a mehbote. Imagine my shock.
  15. Boise no Good

    "Mehbote" isn't exactly setting the bar high for "highest promotional value"... You show me a single glowing review of the Boise that doesn't say it's average at best and I will retract everything I've said thus far.