Jump to content

Iridium81

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    547
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4715

Community Reputation

100 Valued poster

About Iridium81

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Profile on the website Iridium81

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

2 Followers

  1. 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.
  2. Emblems

    The art team does good work, I just question the use of said emblems and badges in game.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Yeah, I find it difficult to warrant spending that amount at once in this game. Heck, I can think of many other whole games I could buy and experience, rather than have a few more ships within this game. I tend to think these bundles are only for the extreme, 'gotta have them all' crowd with excess cash on hand.
  8. Sigh, you don't seem to be getting it. WG has ships in game that are faster than they actually were in service because of inflated sea trial speeds that either wrecked the engines, or were quickly restricted to prevent it after. Sea trials were a popular fibbing point by construction yards due to nations giving bonuses based on trial speed results. Soviet DDs, and Italian cruisers being some of the more obvious offenders. Statistics are just that, without context, they mean little. WG has chosen to use sea trial speeds in some cases, and in other cases not. I'd call that cherry picking but eh.
  9. Sure why not... invalidate it because you feel like it. Montana was nearly built, and was likely to be as fast as designed, not much faster if at all. But sure, we'll pretend WG doesn't take liberties with ships that were built.
  10. Not that I suggested it, but you are wrong in that they did artificially inflate other vessel's top speed. See Montana.
  11. Alaska class why?

    Technically, Baltimore hails from pre-WWI era light cruiser / protected cruiser stock. Its a bit different in that sense. To get a better perspective on BCs, and cruisers in general, I would suggest reading two particular books on the subject. Thunder in Its Courses: Essays on the Battlecruiser and In the Shadow of the Battleship: Considering the Cruisers of World War II, both by Richard Worth. They attempt to give far more context to the ships, the atmosphere they were designed in, and why arguing about what to call ships is futile to some degree because they blend so much at times.
  12. I wouldn't mind that either, you'd have to give Lexington a fantasy AAA rebuild akin to the standards post pearl harbor, but it could work.
  13. Not suggesting that, merely stating that Colorado is misplaced at tier 7 because of that alone. Maps are larger, and mobility is a whole lot more effective in terms of survivability than 9k HP.
  14. They aren't addressing the primary issue I had with the Colorado; speed. It is still a 21kt standard BB in a 27kt+ world.
  15. Alaska class why?

    The problem is that much of the available information is just statistics without context, or qualifiers. That, and people's need to define things, and never have them change. Which is just silly, of course things change over time. The whole firepower/armor scenario is relative. In the early 1900s we had armored cruisers and battleships in and around 15k tons armed with 12" guns. 30 years later we have cruisers shrinking in size down to 10k tons armed with 8" guns, and BBs at 35k tons with 16" guns. Its no wonder people have such difficulty understanding why things played out the way they did, and how they might have panned out had no treaty been signed. As ship capability grew, more capable ships would have supplanted the older ones. The standards accepted previously would have been null and void. That cruiser development had been stunted so much seems to be ignored, or assumed that cruisers could never hope to be of similar size as BBs, which is patently false as seen in prior iterations.
×