Jump to content

Aetreus

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    3,698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4400

Community Reputation

614 Excellent

2 Followers

About Aetreus

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Aetreus

    Italians are coming!

    That line has been copied verbatim from a navweaps page and has nothing to do with the game. WG's wikis are often full of useless nonsense about mechanics like this. Also, if it were true, you might note that 38mm < 100mm anyways, so the shell would always arm. Try again.
  2. Aetreus

    Italians are coming!

    You are wrong. Pure and simple, the AP shell arming threshold is known and it is 1/6. Thin ships will allow for overpens at short ranges, but you never get a fuse failing to arm(hint, fuse failures to arm mean overpens at any range, which I've never seen on a 100mm cruiser).
  3. Aetreus

    Italians are coming!

    Uh, you're kind of dead wrong about this. 100mm armor ALWAYS arms 16" shells, arming is 1/6 of caliber so basically any cruiser armor will arm 16" guns.
  4. Aetreus

    Italians are coming!

    I can kind of understand why they want Zara at VII. At the same time I think they're wrong and am happily going to use her to predate all the innocent tier V/VI cruisers that will have no way of dealing with a well-armored cruiser.
  5. Aetreus

    Emilio Paolo

    I don't like any of these concepts in design terms. NA's concept is a ship without a very sensible role. The RM 135mm gun ballistics aren't really sufficient to being an open-water gunboat(and 27mm of pen makes the NA SAP proposal awful, as IFHE 135mm is just as good). Trying to use 51 knot torpedoes against cruisers is crazy land, at least EU realizes that 12km and 51 knots is bad torps though I think their damage reduction reflects a fear of 12 torpedoes, even though its only 8 per side. Extra flooding doesn't help torpedoes if they can't hit things. RN DD hydro isn't useful without the long smoke emission those ships have. EU is forgetting that that with their fine smoke control the ship will be able to spend 300 seconds continually smoked, which is kind of OP(and very annoying) especially if it is able to share that with another ship. I don't know what RU is on. More range on torps is unlikely in balance terms and doesn't help the ship that much. 50% speed boost is way too much even for short periods, makes the ship too consumable-centric. More heals on a chunky destroyer unsettles me. Asia doesn't understand that a ship with 110k HE DPM can't win destroyer fights even if it has 34,000 effective health in the fight. Short detection is just ensuring that the Gearing/Harugumo will be in range to shoot you in the face with their 200k+ HE DPM. In terms of SAP on destroyers, my main response would be "please no." DD gunboats are restricted in big part by the inability of HE shells to penetrate plating, and therefore restrictions on DD's ability to deal direct HP damage to larger ships. SAP will mostly lack those limits while likely suffering less at high angles than pure AP does. Also, SAP+AP or SAP alone makes the ship perversely limited against its own class(ricochets), which isn't a very desirable outcome given DD fights are very common. As for what I would do with this ship... I'd say to make her a hybrid fast destroyer. ATM the fast destroyers are mostly gunboats with limited torpedo ability(Groz and Kleber are mostly gun-focused ships). That would mean buffs to torpedo accuracy, probably 60-65 knots speed with 12km range. Damage would help as well, fast reload =/= alpha impact. Potentially using exported American torpedoes would allow for doing something similar. Supporting that would I think need decreasing fire time to around 6-7 seconds. 8.5 seconds is just too slow on a destroyer and leaves it totally vulnerable to any other destroyer. In terms of consumables, I would try and build it to avoid the DD heal meta that has been arising. I'd probably say a smoke with standard emission time/duration, but much larger individual puffs allowing the ship to hide up to around 35 knots(3/4 speed, roughly). Standard speed boost would be more than enough coupled with that.
  6. Aetreus

    Epicenter needs to be removed

    The new Epicenter where each of the cap zones is separate(i.e. holding the inner zone doesn't stop cap on the middle/outer zones) is pretty cool. I don't like old Epicenter though, hopefully WG will commit to the new version.
  7. I haven't been playing very much recently as I've been too busy to spend the time. This going through will make that permanent, I guess. Sad, because I've liked this game for a long time and felt things were going reasonable well, but nothing lasts forever I guess.
  8. Lol "mirroring real naval engineering". Like they didn't have the tops of boilers and secondary magazines in those spaces.
  9. Well yes, the difference is that GC is a T6 premium ship that was sold for(not checking) something like 30$ or could be randomly obtained(which is "fair" they to the playerbase as a whole, I guess). The reality is that the vast majority of the playerbase does not have the time to grind out anything past level 1 buffs, and the cost for getting them is very steep. Basically most players would I suspect be fine with these buffs if they were given out as a random reward or a limited-time grind that was achievable, and would protest very hard if threatened with their removal. If the grind were equivalent to that of a line grind for all the buffs together it would probably not have provoked this kind of outrage, though it would still net some. Somewhat less would likely not even have caused a blip- people tolerate the T10/T9 premiums even when some of them are contentious.
  10. I'll go for the obvious: this is so deeply unpopular that it seriously risks killing the playerbase. It doesn't matter if it is a good idea or not(I think it isn't), the scale of the reaction and more troubling that it is almost uniform, with very few dissenting voices, makes this an incredibly dangerous path to take. In a broader sense, this change makes for a situation where a very few players will have a major advantage over others that is only possible to match with thousands of games of grinding. That kind of wrecks one of the core conceits of a competitive game like this, that it is about the actions a player takes in a match that drives if they win or not(or their team's actions as a whole). Having someone get a ship that is majorly more powerful like this is incredibly disruptive to that. Would you sell a ship that had all these bonuses "baked in?" Even the Tier 1 bonuses are fairly serious. Because I know you're thinking it, captain skills and modules aren't seriously relevant to this. Because the level of grind for those is fairly low. A set of T10 modules costs less than the ship, and you've inflated credits pretty badly with some ships so it doesn't matter too much anyways. Captain skill isn't too much of a grind either given there are big bonuses available to it, it's likely that players have ground their captain up to at least 14 points by T10, and it's possible to bank them from 19 point captains now which results in big pools of captain XP washing around for veteran players.
  11. Aetreus

    AA is Ridiculously Over Powered

    You should never have made a change this big without the means to assess how to counterbalance it. Which, okay, people don't play PTS much and not like they play live. In which case this change should have been made incrementally, probably by having only some of the damage target the most damaged aircraft(starting with 10-25% would probably be safe).
  12. Aetreus

    ST: Priority Air Defense Sector

    My suggestion would be this, and the burst isn't instant but takes a few seconds to charge, and the focus fire is visually indicated to the CV. That way it is mechanically skilled on both ends, with the firing ship trying to keep the target in its AA arc and using it at the right time, while the CV tries to evade it.
  13. Lexington wasn't supposed to be right with the battleships, but supporting slower battleships in a fleet to fleet engagement is very much within her design parameters. "without endangering themselves" is kind of wishful thinking on a ship like Lexington, while she was supposed to have some protection versus big guns the protection on the ships was limited. 16" rifles were totally superfluous unless the intent was to fight battleships, contemporary battlecruisers with the possible exception of the UK's Admiral class(which was sketchy until as noted late in the Lexington process) were not armored sufficiently to resist major-caliber gunfire. Certainly typical scout cruisers were not. This doesn't make sense because a ship that is a fleet scout first and everything else second has no business being as big and expensive as Lexington. A fleet scout only needs to be big enough to have reasonable seakeeping, not also carry a battery comparable to those of a battleship and enough armor to mostly resist intermediate caliber guns. Being a fleet scout was an important part of their design, but they were also designed to match other nation's battlecruisers and to be useful ships in a fleet engagement(which they had to be given their expense).
  14. Aetreus

    Good job wg you just killed CV

    Uh, all the upgraded planes except T4 carriers historically carried rockets(well, F4F's didn't until they became FM's). Even the Japanese, who weren't too big on them as weapons. As for attacks against naval ships, Yamato was attacked by F4U's carrying rockets, as were ships at Kure. Taffy 3 used them though they were of course using all the munitions available on the CVE's. I think they weren't common but that was likely because there was better ordnance available, usually bombs. Fighters sometimes carried them instead of bombs, given they weren't suited to bombing attacks(no bombardier/sight, no dive brakes), but most of the time fighters went without ordnance to provide air cover. The late war rockets becoming more common is likely a symptom of the USN adopting a more fighter-centric air group composition.
  15. Iowa was basically intended to intercept fast capital ships which the USN's 28 knot battleships could not(meaning battlecruisers, mostly), and to join the battle line with her big guns. This is roughly 2/3 of what the Lexington class were supposed to do, the other thing they were was fleet scouts which OFC was a role the carrier had totally superseded the surface ship in. Iowa was considerably better armored than the Lexington but C&R had actually tossed around the idea of more armor during the Lexington-class development.
×