AirCrewChief

First post. Second post. EP, thank you for the suggestion to link former posts.

I've had this old kit in my closet for years, having no real reason to build it. I got it from a "wall of shame" in a local plastic-model shop in Ventura; the kit had been opened and pieces were missing. Anyways earlier this year my housemate and I were talking Navy. I served, and so did her Dad. Anyway she got out some old photos and we discovered he'd been a Corpsman stationed aboard CV-60 during the VietNam war. He passed away many years ago, and I asked her if she'd like the kit. It took some work; the masts, a propeller, and both rudders were missing. Also missing were some of the 24" searchlights and many of the island fittings. I built what I could, painted things up, and used an aftermarket set of decals. I'm sure it's not completely accurate for the early '60s, but I think she'll like it. She found a place up on her top shelf to keep it. The kit depicts the Saratoga from the 1960s, with A3D Skywarriors, F7U-3 Cutlasses, F2H-4 Banshees, FJ-3 Furys, and HUP-3 Retrievers. My eyes and hands just aren't as good as they were 40 years ago, so paint and fine detail are not stellar by any means. The replacement decals are "Starfighter Decals" by Mark's Models and Toys for the Forrestal-class CVAs in the 1950s. I know the Saratoga is a bit outside World of Warships' range, but I thought it'd be a nice forum post.

Having spent nearly 20 years in "Maritime Patrol" I can state with some confidence that subs can 'hear' planes given the right circumstances, and observant crewmembers in planes can easily see submarines at periscope depth.

Maybe part of why we(non-WG employee players) don't believe that is because there are many times where I will sit for 3-4 minutes in MM waiting for a battle. And many times I'll watch the numbers of "ships in my tier range" go up, AND DOWN multiple times as teams are selected. When we see ourselves excluded for one or two 'match-ups' while waiting for a team, it smacks of some kind of selection other than random. I will amplify this by stating that I often enter MM in a class that may only have 3 or 4 other players, watch MM go to say 12 of my type, then back to maybe 4. Now the first time I MIGHT HAVE BEEN #5, but when it happens a second or even third time before I get a match then it appears something else is being taken into consideration by the MM. Interestingly, many times those selections end up with me in a match with players and BOTS, even though there might have been upwards of 50-60 players within my range in que...

Tier I - III, get sunk by seal-clubbers whose ships have maximum camouflage, maximum skipper-skill, and maximum upgrades; ie, you can't touch. Tier IV - V, get sunk by CVs you can't touch. Tier VI - X, get sunk by SSs you can't touch. Is this accurate?

If we are still talking about the USS California, and any other US BBs that 'survived' December 07 and that are in the game, maybe WG should consider this buff. The Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee, Nevada, and California were all 'modernized' along with the U.S. BBs that weren't at Pearl Harbor. All received extensive upgrades to their AA suite specifically due to the lessons learned from the attack on Pearl Harbor. How about an increase to the torpedo-damage attenuation for the California, along with AA defenses that are more accurate. I am sure WG won't consider RADAR on any of these ships, but I think the damage attenuation vs torpedoes and airplanes are worthwhile. It can be argued that the U.S, more than any other nation in WWII, did not want one of their BBs sunk by aircraft ever again. That should be reflected in at least the fully researched versions of the U.S. Standard BBs in the game.

The only gamers I've ever heard truly and loudly complain AGAINST skill-based MM are the top players who are scared they will lose their ability to seal-club. Many of these 'high-skill' players don't want to be forced to play with/against players of their own skill level because they don't want to lower their 'scores'. But here's an idea. Let's remove statistics to the degree that the only numbers that WG records are the ones a player generates playing their top-tier ships. For example, once you've got your tier VI Japanese BB, any games you play in your tier V Japanese BB simply don't count towards any statistic but 'total battles played'. If a player wants to stay at tier V and seal-club, they can just NOT research tier VIs. Said player always research nation/class lines, but only the nation/class line(s) that they keep 'unresearched' will still be creditable to their statistics. This concept is not 'skill-based' in any way. This simply removes the ability for high-skill/high-tier players to use lower-tier matches to 'pad' their statistics.

I took AE Canarius out this morning. Two players on my team immediately began calling the other team and telling them to target me. They did this multiple times, and when I asked if they meant me they replied "Yes". One of them shot across my bow at least once. I found it a bit frustrating that the other team did as they asked(mine was the first ship sunk, targeted by I believe 4 or 5 OpFor ships). I thought it was funny that these two 'teammates' wasted so much time doing so that they contributed to us losing the match. They gave no reasons why, but I just chalk it up to immaturity.

I shortened up your posts so as not to make 'a wall'. Now...not to be a but, but you both do realize USS San Diego was laid down a month before USS Atlanta, and completed about 1.5 months before Atlanta. I'm just curious how you're making it a tier VIII? In terms of AA capability the USS Flint was considered more powerful than either the USS Atlanta or the USS San Diego. I don't really see History being well-represented.

The problem with xp earned will be difficult to overcome. If Support CVs perform AA(CAP) and ASW for teammates, then they need to be awarded a decent amount of XP for each plane shot down as well as for damage/destruction of subs. In addition, maybe add on XP for damage prevented to your teammate. For subs this could be calculated from potential damage by torps that were avoided while in the Support CV's smoke. For CAP, perhaps an XP award based on the potential damage of each Attack Aircraft that was shot down as well as XP for the HP of the Attack Aircraft. And for shooting down Fighters, perhaps XP awarded based on the HP of those Fighters. This would allow Support CVs to acquire XP based on how well they SUPPORT their team. Another result of this would be that CVs would be more wary of just 'dropping' Attack Squadrons' CAP Fighters off by themselves to light up anything that comes near. I would also like to see ships that were historically AA batteries be given higher XP awards for shooting down aircraft; this would allow players of those ships to accumulate XP based on supporting their teammates; and we know most of the AA ships in-game are quite fragile when in range of OpFor batteries.

Hello good sir! I'm not sure if anyone else has had this problem; everytime I attempt to purchase something with that "20% back with doubloons" it 'locks'. I haven't even found anything that allows use of that coupon, but I think that's because it keeps locking up. Perhaps a better explanation of 1)how it works, and 2)exactly what you can buy with it?

I'd love to see an Operation with this concept; the players are tasked with either protecting it or defeating it, but an A.I. Habbakkuk can launch aircraft to defend/counter-attack.

Nice. I noticed in the post that "High School Fleet" and "Azur Lane" collections are hinted to become available again. That'd be cool; I never finished them. Also...WG, you forgot Cap!

If I read correctly you must purchase particular crates for coal in the armory.

My apologies. Forensically.com I did not misspell or use incorrect grammar. That is the name of the company/website that provides no-cost basic tools to examine internet images for signs of 'doctoring'.