• Content count

    6,970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3470

Community Reputation

777 Excellent

2 Followers

About Sakuzhi

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Sakuzhi

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Portal profile Sakuzhi
  1. Basically. How overwhlelmingly [edited] the Graf Zeps AP Bombs are now that the Developers showed everyone they have no [edited]clue how to balance anything because they can instant-delete same tier Battleships with a manual Drop and have bombs to spare. Also, don't worry, it's every Battleship, not just KM one's because the developers decided to give the Bombers a better fuze, a better max penetration, a better damage, and more of them. Versus the Graf Zep is an OP piece of crapthat needs to be re-nerfed into the stone age and people get their money back.
  2. You are pretty much an idiot I see. Good to know, but for your simple, idiotic mind I'll [edited]tell you a few things. Chaining Battleships to Cruisers that may or may not have DF-AA, that may or may not USE IT is pretty much the most retartded [edited]thing ever. Not to mention I've been killed by the [edited]fantasy Graf while doing everything, including having a USN Cruiser CLOSE to me. So yeah, how about this, next time you think of typing, stop, then shut the [edited] up. I've been killed at Full heatlth as a Bismarck by the [edited] Graf while in my own [edited]spawn not 3 minutes into the [edited]game. I have been killed while at 30k+ HP in a QE, with an AA BUILD with a NOLA within 6km of me, with the [edited]Comically busted Graf-craphaving to dive bomb the worst possible [edited]angle. Still dead. crapis OP, and needs to be nerfed into the [edited]ground, it's [edited]comical how idiotically powerful the DBs are on the Graf right now. They are just "insert instant delete here" unless the other CV can murder them, all 15+ of them. And as mentioned, that's a bunch of horse-crap. It's one thing to get killed when you make a mistake with over 50% of your HP left, it's another when you literally do everything correct, use 'teamwork' and you just get killed anyway because of moronic [edited]Developers that couldn't balance a CV for crapso everyone know has to deal with the massively UP Fighters and the Massively OP crapBombers. Don't worry, they do the same crapto cruisers as well.
  3. Here's the deal. the USN AP bombs are fine. The KM Ones, will put it this way. They OH-Wipe a Full HP Bismarck, period, the end. That crapneeds to be re-nerfed into the ground. Doubly so seeing as they are pretty much skill-less to use. The Enterprise on the other hand will do 'maybe' 1/2 to 2/3s with their DBs, which is far less lel, [edited]OP as crap. The Developers at the end of the day over-buffed the crapout of the Stuka's.
  4. Fact, USN DDs have it worst. Quit [edited].
  5. Saw @Cobraclutch Last night. Would have been more fun the match didn't go south in the first few minutes.
  6. They also would get their asses kicked because they do not own the Enterprise. The only way they would win that suit is if it was very clearly a Star trek thing.
  7. Like I've mentioned before, use IJN CVs, the Big E will be much easier if you are used to using 5+ Flight groups.
  8. The problem isn't that the AP bombs shouldn't work. It's that WG fail-armoring decks so they are thicker than they should be historically due to pure laziness makes the AP bombs not as effective as they could be. For example, Nelsons should be fearing the Hand of God from on high in terms of AP bombs. In Game? Well it benefits from having an extra 12.5mm thick top deck which makes it nearly immune to getting Citadeled to [edited] like German BBs.
  9. If they could, they wouldn't ask for it you brainless [edited]potato.
  10. There is no range that a vertical plate of the same thickness would have superior protection to an angled one prior to that actually. You literally have no idea what you are talking about on that case. Even at the range 'band' you are talking about, the difference between teh 45' angled turret face against a flat one is meaningless for about 5'~ either way, I was simply being 'kind' before, the reality is that the USN Turret armor is outright superior starting from 1914, at ranges where foreseen naval ranges were handled, given that the 'difference' in protection is at best a toss-up out to and including 25,000yards. And that the longest actual hits ever from Naval cannons are at 26,000 yards. Yeah, it's simply better, sorry teaboo's, it's not good enough. And no, it would never be completely neutralized at those angles, if you think shell normalization goes -that- far you really need to go start reading up on how penetration by kinetic projectiles work. It isn't HESH. Vanguard says hello. And 330mm Turret faces weren't good enough back in 1914, they sure as hell weren't good enough in in the 40s. I like vague non-specific words to describe complex systems, honest. Flooding isn't the issue, suddenly exploding was. And the British do not have anything near a good track record when it comes to Not-suddenly-exploding, or Damage control in general honestly. That would be unlikely given that the British pretty much ignored using interlocks until Jutland. And I believe there has been some talk that they ignored it afterwards because of politics. Here's the difference between the SoDak and say, pretty much the rest of those examples. ^That would involve a penetration of some Variety. So the Scharnhorst was penetrated. As for the Bismarck, the Germans much like the British, didn't properly armor their turrets. And All of them were outright destroyed, don't quite get why you thought to point out why the flat-turret design is pretty much flawed. Finally, unlike literally every other ship you brought up. The Sodak's Turret wasn't even 'jammed' in the first place, the Green as Grass crew were being overly cautious nothing more. So no, there is no declining returns to armoring your turret or your barbette's. That's why the USN and IJN continued to increase their Turret armor as increasingly more powerful Cannons were made available. Quite a bit of difference than losing your turret completely because you are still using a WW1 Armor profile on your Turrets because your Navy basically had no real advancement in Battleship design since 1919. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-south-dakota-bb57-war-damage-report-no57.html
  11. It isn't 'just' the Loadouts that are a problem, there are a variety of issues that aren't just USN CV Specific, which is what I was talking about. First there's the RNG nature of things involving AA, which likely needs to be canned. Then there's this curious case of Strafing, and how the F6F-5 can drop 3 Bombers a flight against lex bombers, but can literally wipe the entire strike group and fighters in a single strafe from the Graf Zeppelin. It isn't 'just' the Midway being bad, it's how pretty much everything starting after the Bogue is subpar. It isn't a simple issue of just adjusting Flight groups, anyone with any degree of experience could tell you that.
  12. Okay, sure I'll bite. First, I play more than Battleships, even a momentary glance at my profile would showcase that. Second, There has been no real game-play changes that effect Battleship gameplay difficulty since CBT. None, zero, zip, nadda. So much so that you can't even say what those so-called 'dumbed' down changes are. Finally, if we want to take a historical point of view to this, Battleships are literally the most gimped ships in the game to make anything else that isn't an Aircraft Carrier remotely useful in a Naval engagement. Furthermore, like so many other clowns you don't get it. Destroyers are literally the easiest ship-class to play Tier 8+. Bar none.
  13. There is more of an issue than that.
  14. ^ Yes, to the Carl you listen. AA mod was generally better anyway.
  15. HE damage is likely fine. Fire chance isn't.