Jump to content

Iridium81

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5100

Community Reputation

102 Valued poster

About Iridium81

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

2 Followers

  1. CA-CL Differentiation

    The problem is that the difference between CA and CL is only the gun caliber. They both hail from light/protected cruiser stock, the only other type that could have continued being armored cruisers, but they morphed into the idea of the battle cruiser, or if you like... simply stopped existing due to treaty restrictions. The Washington Naval Treaty didn't really make CA/CLs different beyond the guns, and since they both adhere to a 10k ton limit (or at least they were supposed to); protection schemes are limited due to the old 'speed/firepower/armor' formula. In game? Meh, WG will do whatever they please.
  2. What was the impetus for this move? CA taxes, etc?
  3. ST Stalingrad Initial Stats

    Agreed on all of Yashma's comments. I'd just like to add that as much as I like hard facts, it doesn't tell the full story of these ships, there are a lot of factors that cannot be explained with simple numbers. Saying such-and-such's belt is 12" thick, does not explain its coverage, length in proportion to the ship, oddities it might possess due to design issues, etc. Wikipedia is a good quick and dirty source, but it lacks a lot of information that is more specific, and detailed in order to properly describe these designs.
  4. No nation has the combination you seek. Each type of armor scheme has it strengths and weaknesses. Weapons come at a cost of tonnage, which typically equates something else missing, be it armor, speed, habitability, sea keeping, or whatever else you can think of. As your first answer stated, there is nothing simple about what you ask.
  5. Italian Tier X Cruiser

    I think you started this conversation with an attitude problem, and assumed I should know what someone else knows. I also think you believe that i have some anti-Italian bent when it couldn't be farther than the truth. Paper designs are all fine and well, but looking at design lineage and extrapolating on it is a common practice. Sorry if I expected the thread to be for anyone interested rather than a select few all ready in the know. Do you always assume the worst intention upon reading something? It's no wonder the community is getting more divisive and virulent.
  6. Italian Tier X Cruiser

    They were asking for references, they are the only things that exist in history relative to the topic. What else would you have someone show? Seriously, I'm beginning to think you have issues that don't stem with the topic at hand.
  7. Italian Tier X Cruiser

    To be fair, Italy did increase the distance between gun axis, from 100cm to 127cm in the Garibaldi turrets, and did prove to have superior dispersion to their predecessors. It isn't a matter of whether Italy was capable, they just didn't have the resources or time to develop a larger project. Feel free to bring out designs or napkin drawings, WG is going to need them. Not sure why you had this reaction honestly...
  8. Italian Tier X Cruiser

    From Navweaps, the barrels are close together ala Duca, so dispersion was a concern. Otherwise, they were fairly high performance at the cost of barrel wear. Rate of fire is anywhere from 16-30 seconds, I'd imagine the loading process was highly dependent on a skilled crew being well rested (a lot of manual handling). Note these are turrets mounting the 1927 203mm/53 guns used on Zara and Bolzano. The only real life example of a 254mm gun would be this: The main guns on these two ships are 254mm/45 guns, they are to the best of my knowledge the last of their size to be designed for Italy. A theoretical modern version could be considered if WG wanted another large gun cruiser. The gun's stats would be up in the air then because we're talking about 30+ years of gun development since then.
  9. That 5:1 duplicate conversion when you only have 5 characters is hilariously bad. Not to mention if you have none of the ships involved in the event.
  10. Emblems

    The art team does good work, I just question the use of said emblems and badges in game.
  11. In my humble opinion, you've nullified any argument you had when you disregarded any conversation about using AP with the 203mm guns. It is why you would arm the ship as such in the first place. The HE spam method is lazy, but does yield results. You can't have both, so choose. Hipper is oddly left out of the conversation?
  12. Ashitaka best flamethrower

    Nerf BBs by introducing more and more BBs that don't care what angle you might be at in relation to the aggressor? Along with the British line, it is a touch ironic.
  13. When Will Enough be Enough?

    Maybe its just me, but after reading 7 pages, this thread seems to be a case of people arguing past each other. That or some fundamental disagreements that will never be settled, depending on how one looks at it.
  14. If that were the case then casinos would just have to give some paltry 'prize' with each gambling transaction to make it 'not' gambling, and thus not regulated by those laws. Be assured the 3% rake would still be active however. The laws need updating, where the finer points end up... we'll see. Generally, I disagree with games being used as paid for half products that are a platform for even more transactions so that the user can fully experience the product. The 'Loot Box' was a way to compel the user to spend more to either not play the game, the 'we're saving you time argument', or have an advantage over non-premium players. The industry is pushing the envelope on acceptable business practices in my opinion.
×