Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

14 Neutral


  • Rank
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Western Hemisphere
  • Interests
    Chewing bubble gum and kicking.....I don't know, i forget, but something.
  1. I did a search for this topic and didnt come up with anything, so I guess i'll just throw this out. When this season of "clan wars" started, i was wondering where a campaign or global map has been. (I've been away from the game for about 5 or so months) I would have thought that by now, since the game has been out for 3 years now i think, that this would have been addressed a long time ago. Is there a reason for this? So while i was thinking about it, I wondered what a global map would look like, and had a few thoughts. I would use comparisons to the European map in Tanks. (before they moved they map to North America) Break the oceans into sections, like in WoT and place different doubloon values on them. If the ocean location is in the path of a lucrative and prosperous trade rout (in the real world at the times the game covers) then they have a higher payout. If your clan controls major trade and construction ports, possibly canal sites, they would pay out the most. and for the oceans with little to no traffic i.e. the seas above Antarctica, or something of equal uselessness, then that turf would be akin to Africa from WoT, used for newer and less competitive clans. What do you guys think of this?
  2. Aquila

    She had hangar space for 51 aircraft, but this was because the Italians lacked folding wings, after it was too late they did develop 10 folding wing aircraft, if they had been able to fully stock the Aquila with these planes her hanger capacity would have went to 66.
  3. Aquila

    Is there any chance, or possible plans to get the Aquila into the game? I would love to see some more diversity in the carrier class. With only 3 nations that can fill out a complete tech tree for the class I would really enjoy some "off the radar" aircraft carriers in the game. Obviously they would have to be prems, but i think that it would be amazing to see more than 2 different CV's (soon to be 3 with UK eventually) any given tier, minus the GZ now.
  4. Good review, been looking forward to ship for a very long time.
  5. Odd, there seems to be more opinions on the ship than there are people who have played it.
  6. It seems to be getting chippy up in here.
  7. US carrier split possibilities

    Do any of you know if there is enough for CV's in the German plans for the naval expansion that was supposed to go to '45? This was the build plan that built the bismark, zeplin, and tirpitz, it was a massive build program. I know they were gonna build more CV's but Im not sure if they were all gonna be the zeplin class, or if there other options that could supply in-game tier 9 and 10 like the present 9 and 10s.
  8. I've been thinking that since there is so little diversity or opportunity for it in the carriers tech trees, because very few nations actually committed to aircraft carriers like the US, UK, and Japan did, that there should be (and hopefully there is) some sort of plan in the future for WG get more top tier CV's in here. So on that premise i started thinking about the US line first as that would probably be the easiest. So this is what i came up with, they split the line at tier 7, and introduce the Wasp. At tier 8 they could have the Yorktown's. I would love to see the Hornet in this game in some capacity. At tier 9 Saratoga, (my personal favorite WW2 carrier) now i know there might be a few eye brows raised at that with the Lex already at 8, (they are the same class of ship in case you were not aware) but the Lex was sunk in '42, and the Sara went on till the end of the war, which would allow WG to improve it over her tier 8 sister, better consumables, aircraft, larger HP etc. and at tier 10 the Essex class, having split from the Midway line and becoming a tier 10 in its own right. Obviously that leaves a hole in the Midway tree, and i really cant come up with a solution for it, thats where i got stumped. Do any of you know of any designs of the US that were not used (other than the United States, too late in the time frame) that we could put in the Midway line? On a related note, while i was thinking about this I also thought that with Saipan gone at tier 7, that the Wasp would be a perfect replacement for it. She was the only one of her class, and was unique in that she was built deliberately "weak" to make her treaty compliant. This is also what lead to her being destroyed by 3 IJN torps fired from a sub during the Guadalcanal campaign. She seems like a perfect candidate for a 7 premium, respectable aircraft compliment, not the fastest, and has a glass jaw - extremely susceptible to torpedo attack. Anyway that was my rant. Once they get the "CV problem" resolved i personally would like to see more diversity for the class at high tiers.
  9. Question about buying the Roma

    Thanks guys, I guess I'll just get the standard camo, theres nothing wrong with that one, it looks fine, i just wanted that other one. Its not worth it though, its just too dumb looking, I wish i could be swearing about how much i HATE that look. Why would WG do something like alter the physical appearance to something so trashy? (Figuratively and literally in this case)
  10. Question about buying the Roma

    The Roma is a ship that I have been hoping for since i heard this game was going to be made. Its one of the best looking Battleships ever made, and I was thrilled when I heard that i could finally have it. That being said, I would prefer the one with the upgraded camo pattern, however that STUPID looking trash can on the foremast is such a huge eye sore, they made one the best looking ships in history look like something that resembles some kind of 1950's B movie cheesy special effects, what is that dumb thing? It looks so horrible. Is there a way i can get the Roma with that camo pattern but not the 55 gal. drum on its head? So dumb.
  11. Just a Thought about CV's and MM

    You dint think that something like this would promote good AA play to counter it?
  12. I'm primarily a CV player, %46 of games are in carriers, and Ive been trying to help a clan mate get started with CV's. Trying to describe things as simple as changing the loadout has proven quite a chore over TS. I know they've finally introduced training rooms but that aside, what do you guys think increasing teams to 15 per side and having the possibility of having 2 carriers per side of equal tier? A thing like this would, in my opinion, help train new CV players, because you could more effectively "hold their hand" so to speak. It would also place an importance on AA at the higher tiers again, because lets face it, the higher the tier the less likely you'll see a carrier, this has made AA builds on ships almost redundant. Why have an AA build at 9 or 10 when you typically you see a CV once every 10-15 games? Its a waste of consumables and captain's points. AA builds are the US's specialty, and they have very little use for it. Like I said i just wanted to run this by some of you to see what you thought, I realize how something like this would be "abused" by 2 unicum CV players, but with all the help being giving to new CV players at the lower tiers maybe somehting like this would up balancing out with more skilled carrier captains at higher levels.
  13. How Much Longer Till Alpha????

    i just cant wait for this game, Ive been looking forward to it for a long time, i was a huge fan of the battlestations games, and other naval RTS's for the PC.
  14. FYI the movie battleship was probly this biggest POS ive seen since.........I dont know i guess since they took mystery science theater 3000 off they air on the sci fi channel