Jump to content

ramp4ge

Alpha Tester
  • Content count

    3,623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    521

Community Reputation

1,464 Superb

About ramp4ge

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Birthday 04/15/1983
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    California
  1. Basically every game in any of the standard-type battleships. "You're a brawler!"
  2. The Lexington or the South Dakota 1920. The options are there.
  3. [edited]. The New York is actually Texas and the upgraded Kongo is actually Hiei. That's the only reason we have Texas as a premium. It was an upgrade hull for "New York" (which is actually Texas) that they didn't want on the tech tree. Wargaming has numerous ships on the tech tree that carry the lead name but are actually other ships of the class. Wargaming could care less about the model matching the ship's name. They've made that perfectly clear.
  4. The hull upgrades used to be dated. Then they went with A/B/C saying "Oh that was accidental we'll fix it in the next patch" and guess what they didn't do?
  5. It should be the top hull for the tier 7 tech tree Colorado. Period, end of story.
  6. USS ALASKA

    Had the ships Alaska was designed to fight (P-Project, B65, other supercruisers) ever left paper, she may have been worth it. But they didn't. She and her sister were the only supercruisers ever completed, and as such they had no peer, but they also had no foe. They were too expensive to justify the role of a normal cruiser and not as capable as a battleship. They were, essentially, victims of the Allied success in crushing Axis forces to the point that the Axis forces couldn't build the ships that Alaska, which was already under construction, were designed to fight. It's almost a miracle that Alaska and Guam were completed as surface combatants as it is, and weren't converted to carriers. And that might be where their historical significance is right there. They were the only post-treaty supercruisers to ever actually see service.
  7. USS ALASKA

    More historically significant than ships that weren't built. Which at that tier constitutes much of the availability...
  8. WOWS Blitz: BCV Ise

    Ee-say. And meh. The hybrids we're bound to come out eventually. Oyodo will probably hit the game sooner or later too.
  9. She should be the top researchable hull for the tier 7 tech tree Colorado.
  10. USS ALASKA

    False. They were designed to fight Japanese cruisers, the B65 and the P-Project. They were not designed to fight the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau. They are nowhere near comparable. One is a battleship with small guns, the other is a cruiser with big guns - for a cruiser. Scharnhorst is still armored like a battleship. Alaska is armored like a cruiser. The two were not intended to oppose each other. Sending Alaska against Scharnhorst would've been dumb. She was a supercruiser designed to fight the proposed German and Japanese supercruisers that never left the drawing board.
  11. USS ALASKA

    Neither was Alabama. US ships that we're historically significant are either missing entirely (Washington, Nevada) or are being implemented in ways that don't represent them as they we're when they were historically significant (West Virginia).. And let's be fair here. After the war the Navy mothballed everything that wasn't an Iowa, Essex, Cleveland, Baltimore or a later destroyer. Being mothballed after the war does not in any way mean the ship was 'junk'... At least Alaska existed. Which is more than can be said about many, many ships in the upper tiers..
  12. The forum doesn't have to represent the majority. The forum only has to represent a proportionate sample.
  13. Given the reaction on the forum, I think you're massively overstating said change.
  14. The only time Wargaming ever actually listens to the playerbase is if the playerbase raises such a stink that games journo outlets pick up on it.
  15. I'd rather it just be added to the tech tree as the top hull for the current tier 7 Colorado.
×