Jump to content
  • Content count

    3,305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1964

Community Reputation

1,079 Superb

About Azumazi

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Birthday 10/21/1983
  • Profile on the website Azumazi

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

WG

  • Position
    ---
  1. In my honest opinion, since CAT, I've always advocated that the CV's should have gone more towards the old Navyfield route and allowed the player slots to select their own loadouts. The originally reason why they didn't do it they stated was for legal reasons due to Nexon pushing for NF2 to roll out around the same time as WoWS but since NF2 was dropped by Nexon and is in a legal blackhole as well as the legal issues of the original NF game removed due to their license having expired in the EU and NA they don't have that issue anymore. What they honestly should have done is the following. 1. Allowed slots like module upgrades for Carriers to have the player select a load out. Depending on tier give them a limited number of slots. Example 3 slots for tier 4/5, 4 slots for 6, 5 slots for 7, and 6 slots for 8-9 and 7 slots for 10. Have a maximum number of plane type be no more than 1/2 of the set number of slots available. This means tier 4's would have either a 1/1/1, or a 2/1/0 or vice versa, tier 6 would have the ability for any slot for 2 with the other two at 1/1, tier 7 would allow for a 2/2/1 config of any sort, tier 8/9 would allow for a single type to have 3 in one slot, and tier 7 would allow for a very wide mix. 2. Remove manual drops, bring in the auto drop circle for CV's to be closer. Give options for different flight patterns for the different craft to change their effectiveness. Basically, allow formations for DB, TB, Fighters for different combat bonuses. This would mean more skill in using the right formation with a cool down at the right time to make it more skill based and bring the skill ceiling down a bit for the extreme spectrum's. The example to give would be for fighters to have say 3 formations. 1st one makes them faster but reduces their effectiveness vs enemy bombers as well as drastically increasing their turn circle, making them better at intercepting fighters as they would get a bonus to damage to enemy fighters but a lower damage to enemy bombers. 2nd stance makes them slower but drastically increases their ability to turn so making fast small circle turns for engaging enemy bombers by cutting them off. The 3rd stance would be a neutral stance with no bonuses. There would also be formations for bombers to increase their abilities against certain bomb targets as well as allow different torpedo drop patterns or DB patterns for better hits since manual drop would be removed knowing how and when to use these formations would be key. 3. Remove CV's ability to perma spot torpedo's when they are no longer detecting them (this should be for ships as well), another thing would need to be done is to adjust AA values to reflect the removal of manual drops entirely.
  2. So where *is* Vanguard?

    I see where you were confused. I have to remind myself most people don't see how combat charts are done on engagement vessels so I apologize for the confusion. The person I originally quoted has usually been understanding of most combat naval terms so I'll drop a pic to explain. The Zero Point that was being initially referred is the point off either bow or stern that you engage a target or zero in from in an engagement. The turret needs to be forward for lead so the zero point generally starts at around 75 or 70 degrees. In the case of most Royal Naval Battleships, the Zero point was at 75 degrees. Hence, why when I said +45 degrees exceeds broadside, that's because +75 takes you to 150 degrees, which is the lockout point of most of the Mark 1 15'' guns, the Vanguard ended up having hers stop at 145 degrees due to blast on the bridge and aft structure hence why I adjusted the lock out point at 145 degrees. So the turrets could traverse to 150 to port or to starboard, or 75 degrees from the "Zeroed Point". Edit: And to make it worse, my last post was even more confusing since I posted that after going 48 hours without sleep.
  3. So where *is* Vanguard?

    45 degrees, you might want to relearn math. 0 degrees is centered to the bow, meaning if you turn 75 degrees to the right of of the bow, you're beyond broadside to starboard. If you go back to 0 degrees at the bow and turn 75 degrees to the left aka port, you're beyond broadside. There is a reason why on all ship blueprints it shows a 0 line with a number to starboard and port usually of that set degree rotation to that side. In the case of Vanguard it's 75 degrees.
  4. So where *is* Vanguard?

    That figure means that 0 is bow/stern for forward and rear guns with the ability to traverse 75 degrees either port or starboard or a total of 150 degrees. Due to the blast effects however they were limited to 140 degrees in service. As for the added barrel wear for elevations above 30 degrees, I'm not sure of that. Vanguard could operate the supercharges but since she went into full service after the war she was never issued any. Hell, she in her career only carried a combat load of main gun munitions for 2 years. She really was in an odd position due to when she was completed and being made into the Royal Yacht.
  5. So where *is* Vanguard?

    To my knowledge, Vanguard as well as the Modernized QE's could fire over her bow and stern as the sighting hood issue was resolved. Supposedly so could Hood. Vanguard also if I remember right could only traverse +75/-75 to Port and Starboard for a total of 150 degrees of traverse, although in reality she was limited to +70/-70 due to blast effects to the bridge and aft platform. There isn't a lot of information about how much of an issue that was overall due to the fact that in 1947 when she was turned into the Royal Yacht, her aft turrets were decommissioned and her ammunition landed to reduce weight as she was overloaded with the accommodations for the Royal Family.
  6. Cobra, if you're going to list stats, do it for all servers because the Gearing is only doing poorly in the NA server (No surprise)
  7. Nevada is a tier 5 ship through and through. Tier 6 should be for the Pennsylvannia which matches Arizona. Now, Nevada doesn't need her top of the line AA suite at tier 5 but her overall characteristics fits that tier. New York should not be used as the balancing point considering it is the worst tier 5 BB in the game, she's basically the US line's Myogi that everyone just has to deal with to get through it. In all reality, the NY was chosen to balance vs Kongo but once the German and UK lines dropped, the NY is on the worst side of the game in all categories. Nevada up to her 1927 builds matches very closely to what Konig and Iron Duke have going in game now. The Armor matches Konig nicely. Nevada would be the slowest of the 3 with more guns, but slower reload. It's a perfect fit. Kongo being a Battlecruiser is a different balancing/matching point and uses speed over the other tier 5's to adjust battle position. Now, as for secondary/weapons armament we have 2 choices. We only go up to her 1927 fit or we go to her 1938 fit. 1927 fit lands her with 12x 5''/51 guns with 6 per side single purpose secondaries with 8x 3''/50 AA guns with 4 per side and a mix of M1919 .30 cal machine guns (exact number unknown). 1938 fit lands her with the same 12x 5'' guns, the 3'' guns replaced with 5''/25's for a total of 8 with 4 per side 2 quad 1.1 chicago piano's added. So they can possibly keep the 3'' guns and add in the Piano's without the 5''/25's for Nevada's fit in game.
  8. No, you mean these two articles which Support said did not apply as it was self inflicted 4.01. Intentionally damaging vehicles belonging to a player on the same team (team damage). 4.02. Intentionally destroying vehicles belonging to a player on the same team (team kill). They highlighted that the mechanics for punishment and response is for another player so causing it to one self is not grounds for punishment. If you want that changed, I suggest you request WG to remove CV's to damage one self as that's the only way.
  9. There is actually a lot of documentation on it per the fact that the upgrades were not that extreme. The 'Akizuki-Kai" was nothing more than the Akizuki with the newer high pressure boiler system designed for the Shimakaze to improve speed and endurance. The Torpedo launcher upgrades were designed as the quintuple launcher was placed on the Shimakaze. The Sextuple launcher was not so that part would be a toss up. As for the 12.7cm/50 Type 1 dual mounts, they were fully designed but not produced due to the progress in the war and the issues with tooling (Japan had issues with replacing tool parts and getting enough processed tungsten and nickle in for replacement) but, there are plenty of topics in the forums highlighting the Japanese issue of this problem. The blueprints for the ship were finalized, ordered, but canceled to clear the slips for the simpler Matsu and Tachibana destroyers to replace losses. So all you would have at tier 10 is the 10cm's replaced with the updated 12.7cm/50's in 4x mounts as the weight between them was expected to only be around 6.5 tons difference per mount. So off-setting top weight of 26 tons wouldn't be that difficult. As for the whole 40mm bofors, that's really up to WG as that mount barely made it past development from reverse engineering even if they did have some land installations with them. Now, as for tier 9, that one I couldn't really say as having 3 Akizuki's would be annoying for most, so having the Akizuki going up to 9 and adjusted for tier 9 and replacing the tier 8 with something else might be warranted.
  10. Someone reported me for doing it in the past and Support ruled it as a legit tactic at the time and I was not given a penalty. I did it for the exact reasons the OP listed and I did it before the manual removal from tier 4/5. I was in a Zuiho, we had 45 seconds to go, 2nd to last ship, we had a 20 point lead. I had 2 DD's rushing me and I knew I couldn't get them both so I double dropped my torp bombers on myself and secured our win. It's a legit tactic that few CV's know about as you cannot be penalized for self-inflicted damage.
  11. There were no autoloading 127mm guns in development for the IJN. There was an improved Type 1/5 12.7cm/50 gun mount using a semi-automatic breach and rammer system much like the Type 98 10cm gun system in the works with only 1 prototype produced before the end of the war. You're probably getting confused with that gun. Now, the IJA had developed a 75mm Autoloading gun with a gravity feed magazine for use in one of their tanks which never was completed, but that's it as far as autoloading systems larger than 40mm.
  12. This is the "Roma"??

    Every report in game I've seen including videos shows her guns not bouncing much at all. The guns are superb, who ever is feeding you "meh" guns is an idiot. The only things they are bouncing on are things that every 15'' gun bounces on due to autobounce mechanics based on overmatch. That's something that cannot be changed without altering code or adjusting their overmatch mechanics which so far I don't think they will do based on how effective they are performing already.
  13. This is the "Roma"??

    So far, based on the Supertesters and current CC's, the Roma is performing SUPERBLY. For them to increase it's range they would have to nerf something on the ship and no one so far wants that done. The range is fine in game and so is the dispersion. Overall the high velocity is making hits still cluster quite well due to the LoS of the impacts still making a wide sigma hit mostly into the hull. This is probably going to be my main go to Tier 8 Premium BB due to how it's performing and many of us don't want them touching anything on it as it's literally ready to go as packaged in testing. The high agility on the vessel coupled with it's good guns and armor is a treat so don't screw it up by asking for more range to get reload nerfed.
×