Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

27 Neutral

About Die95

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is mostly in regard to destroyers, with high tier in mind. Please be realistic, try to create a design that can actually be implemented into the game. Please list the Launcher Setup Damage Reload Range Reaction time once spotted and please provide your reasoning as to why you prefer this type of armament For example, I would prefer a torpedo armament that would be similar to an upgraded Akatsuki loadout with 3 Triple launchers 16k damage per torp 80 second reload per launcher 12km range Fletcher Torp detection time This would provide great flexibility with the 3x3 loadout and has a pretty short downtime with okay damage, good range, and good reaction time
  2. Does seem a bit over tuned. Needs at least some kind of drawback other than "can be punished while going broadside"
  3. Have gamemode where players play as HMS Thunder Child from War of the Worlds. Since the ship is described as a torpedo ram, make all guns secondaries and the ship immune to ramming damage. The mission would be to destroy a number of Martian tripods scattered around the map. Secondary objectives can be to destroy a certain number of tripods, destroy certain tripods before they reach civilian centers... etc. Any thoughts? Pic for reference
  4. Did I mess up, I don't know how to post an image on this forum. I tried just copy-pasting the image in... It looked fine in the preview to me, but evidently it did not work
  5. So I saw this on Facebook some time ago, and I thought I'd share it. It seems relevant. EDIT: So it seems I don't know how to post images on this forum. Here is the Imgur link instead
  6. Good idea for a ship, but I would buff the guns to Nurnberg style guns with 6.0 sec reload instead of the Konigsberg style guns with 7.5 second reload. With the relatively low fire chance and HE dmg of German guns, I think that giving it the same RoF as a Kutuzov or Chapaev would severely hamper this ship, even with its improved HE penetration.
  7. I agree with the premise, but for the sake of not increasing their effectiveness too much, maybe give them all the 30sec reload boost with smoke instead of the current 8sec reload booster. Then if they are still too weak, we can adjust the TRB. Or, change how their smokes work, like you said.
  8. I visited the Mikasa last year, and the reason its not as well preserved as some would like is due to the American occupation after WWII. IIRC, Mikasa was more or less kept intact until that point, then the Americans stripped all the armaments off the ship and turned it into a dance hall, until some effort was made to return it to a museum ship.
  9. Die95

    Smoke Dispersion Speed Limit

    I should have clarified. I do not suggest removing the speed limit completely, I want to raise it so that ships deploying smoke are not forced to slow to 15 knts (I'm not sure what the speed limit is) before deploying smoke. I think a 22-25 knt speed limit is much more reasonable that the current one that limits traveling at 1/4 speed.
  10. Now that WG has greatly reduced the effectiveness of smoke, should the smoke dispersion speed limit be increased to allow for more utility? For those unaware, WG changed the smoke dispersion speed limit many years back prior to the introduction of radar and the smoke firing penalty. At that time it was a problem as DD's going full speed while deploying smoke would "blink" in and out of sight. Therefore WG introduced the speed limit where if one was going too fast, they would deploy the smoke cloud behind them and remain visible. As players now have access to radar, smoke firing has been nerfed, and WG added the marker on the minimap to show where one is aiming, I propose that we increase the current smoke dispersion speed limit to allow to players not having to stop to a crawl to use their smoke. It would add a little more utility to smoke and reduce the occasions where you think you would be in your smoke cloud then get caught outside of it.
  11. Die95

    Revisiting IFHE CL vs CA

    I don't think CL's are over performing, but rather that they make CA HE redundant due to their much higher DPM. CA's are still competitive, but I see little point to picking a CA over a CL in most circumstances.
  12. Die95

    Revisiting IFHE CL vs CA

    #2 here highlights most of my concerns regarding IFHE, as it nullifies the advantages of having CA's trading off DPM for more HE pen. However, as so many CL's have become so dependent on the skill, its difficult to suggest a way to remedy this problem without completely gutting the class. Fire's alone aren't nearly consistent enough, and their AP is rather situational.
  13. It has been almost 2 years since IFHE has been introduced into the game, and I want to see how the opinion on the community has changed surrounding it over this time. I dug up one of my old topics from around the time that IFHE went live, and the opinion was back then that IFHE was of limited use, and in general CA's were still better due to more potent AP. What do you think now?
  14. I dunno, but I have gotten upwards of 5 pens on a single salvo without any damage done to the enemy. This was firing on a full hp enemy ship too, so there was no saturation of any kind either. Rather frustrating but what can you do about it.
  15. Die95

    2018 Secret Santa!

    Unfortunately I will be unable to participate, but seeing threads like this really brighten up my day. Merry Christmas to all!