Jump to content
  • Content count

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4292

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About EasyEight

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Profile on the website EasyEight
  1. Thanks for the comments.. Closed down the client and restarted, still doesn't show the mission complete. Guess that DD was already damaged when I killed it. I'll try again -- I have been having most success in the missions in my T5 Nicholas DD and the Mutsuki since when I try higher tier ships I end up on the bottom of matchmaker. I'll try the Nicholas again.
  2. Hmmm...the mission is still in my list, but maybe you're right. I didn't think the Nicholas was damaged when I killed it, but maybe it was. Buncha DDs mixing it up in the smoke, he pops up at close range and I put a spread of torps into him. *SIGH* This mission is not easy to complete...
  3. Ok, been working on this Pan-Asia mission thread and just completed 4/4 which is to do 5000 damage to a BB, 5000 damage to a CA , 5000 damage to a DD, join the top 3 in XP and Win the battle. I just did that in my Tier 5 Mutsuki and got no credit. I sunk a Fuso BB, sunk a New York BB, put 2 torps into a Yorck CA and then sunk it with gunfire and sunk a Nicholas DD. Came in #1 in XP and my team won the battle. So what happened?!?
  4. Respect for Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya

    Love this beast, it's a very fun BB to play. It is surprisingly maneuverable, and altering speed and angle often throws off enemy gunnery -- the front and rear islands are small targets and a lot of shells go through empty air. I've also started using the BB HE tactic -- with x12 shells you have a good chance of setting fires,then switch to AP shells. But you have to get to 10KM or so for best accuracy.
  5. Respect for Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya

    This is a fun brawler of a BB! It has so many different weapon packed into it, if only we could add a few more...remove a few secondaries and add torpedoes on each broadsides (since they won't enable the x4 fixed forward firing waterline torps in the bow)...and then add Katyusha rocket launchers on top of the turrets!! Heck, add ram prow on the front for the fun of it, in case I run into something!
  6. Thanks, Skarp, makes sense. Used an Akatsuki to finish this one, scored 1900 base! A bit of luck...several enemy BBs decide to drive while zoomed in on gunnery duels...
  7. I think this must be busted for me -- made the base 1600xp twice now, last game had a Benson that scored over 1700 base xp, but doesn't mark as having been completed. What's up??
  8. No, it wasn't proven twice. I listed the combat aircraft complements for Essex vs Taiho: In RL an Essex carried x102 aircraft in combat load out, flew 6 squadrons. But in WOWs the capacity is x72, but only has x49 aircraft, maximum of x4 squadrons. In RL the Taiho only carried x64 aircraft as a combat load out, flew 6 squadrons. In WOWs the capacity is x83, and has x52 aircraft in x6 squadrons.
  9. I've listed America contributions to carrier aviation, which you don't want to recognize -- but it does allow you to obsessively ignore this thread, doesn't it? And 20 sunk IJN Cvs vs 11 sunk US CVs, not a bad record -- so the Americans must have been doing something right, eh? And on the topic of this thread I looked at two CVs, Essex and Taiho (since the pioneer Brits don't rate CVs yet in the game). Why is it "game balance" if WOWs cuts US CV aircraft capacity by 30% while boosting IJN aircraft capacity by 23%, and giving the IJN a 173% faster re-arm time?
  10. Gave you some examples, guess you don't like them. Oh well. What innovations did the IJN introduce by 1945 other than the submarine carrier (that's a joke son)?. By the end of WW2 US naval planes were faster, more maneuverable and had a longer range than IJN planes. Some fighters were also multi-role, they could arm with bombs & rockets as well a provide air superiority, and the Sto-Wing system allowed US CVs to carry more planes than any other carriers during the war. In contrast, the IJN still flew single role planes, some of which didn't even have folding wingtips let alone folding wings. In terms of operations, the US pioneered night ops to a degree not done before, innovated a "shuttle" system that fed planes from escort carriers into Fleet carriers to continue a higher pace of operations than the IJN, and standardization also helped the US be more efficient than the IJN which might see different CVs with different planes and armaments. And as the numbers say -- x20 sunk IJN CVs, x11 sunk US CVs in the Pacific War. So it's fine if WOWs wants to do game balance, but cutting US CV aircraft capacity by 30% while boosting IJN aircraft capacity by 23%, and giving the IJN a 173% faster rearm time -- not so much of a game balance.
  11. Sorry pal, the USN pioneered carrier air ops (stealing ideas from the British) and in any given engagement could put more planes per carrier into the air than the IJN CVs. US carriers, as pointed out before, had larger hangar bays, larger and more elevators, more aircraft due to fully folding wigs (most IJN planes only folded the wingtips, and some TBs like the Yokosuka D4Y carried by Taiho had *fixed* wings!), and faster more flexible carrier ops practices. At a minimum the USN in WOWs, even if you kept everything the same, should have MUCH faster turn around times -- being able to land, rear and launch planes faster than IJN CVs. But in WOWs IJN Carriers are almost TWICE as fast at landing, rearming and launching planes! For example, just look at actual T9 US Essex vs IJN Taiho (the Taijo is basically a Japanese copy of a US Lexington class CV). Taiho - average 23 secs Fighters: 24sec TBs: 25sec DBs: 20sec Essex - average 40 secs: Fighters: 35sec TBs: 44sec DBs: 40sec How does THAT make sense?? An Essex carried x102 aircraft in combat load out, flew 6 squadrons. But in WOWs the capacity is x72, but only has x49 aircraft, maximum of x4 squadrons. The Taiho only carried x64 aircraft as a combat load out, flew 6 squadrons. In WOWs the capacity is x83, and has x52 aircraft in x6 squadrons. So the Taiho capacity is much greater in WOWs than in real life (+23%), and Essex capacity much lower (-30%) than real life. And Essex flies 30% fewer squadrons than in real life. And in game terms the Taiho's planes rearm and fly again 173% faster than the Essex planes. In WOWs they make IJN carriers clearly more flexible, faster and superior to US carriers. Yet in WW2 the US lost x11 CVs in the Pacific war, and the IJN lost x20 CVs.
  12. Howdy, does the Torpedo Reload Booster reset if you are hit?? I fired, hit the booster and then got hit by a salvo, and saw that the boosters had reset -- I was counting on that reload to kill my target, instead I saw the torpedo reload reset to the full timer. I died... Is that normal behavior for the Boosters??
  13. King George V

    I see folk saying KGV HE is good, but I have only a few games with it -- so far the HE sucks, lousy average damage. This ship can't seem to figure out what it is, or maybe I haven't yet. Secondaries are very poor shooters, main gun traverse if good but accuracy is typical and damage seems below average. Not sure about this one yet.
  14. Played all the lines, so probably IJN Kongo BB> KMS Konig BB> UK Iron Duke BB> USN New York BB
  15. Why do people keep saying "Stage 3?" I'm stuck on Stage 4 also, which is to do 140,00 DAMAGE (not XP) in one battle and survive. That means you have to sink something like x2 North Carolina BBs and a Benson DD all by yourself. Been trying with my Gneisenau and my North Carolina, no luck so far.
×