Jump to content

byronicasian

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    2,707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3443

Community Reputation

378 Excellent

About byronicasian

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

606 profile views
  1. Azur Lane discussion thread!

    How do you buy skins? KC event is depressing me at how unprepared I am.
  2. Kantai Collection Discussion Thread Kai

    A pity, AL is fun, but I honestly don't like some of tte design direction they took with the IJN Sakura Empire ships. I probably will end up playing both about equally or 60/40 KC-AL.
  3. No ship in game has a 1 second cyclic firing rate. Also, as someone with an account old enough for neg rep, you should be aware that the game had flooding from AP hits in Alpha and it apparently went terribly.
  4. I have no problem with paper ships to be honest, if only because most of them are usually more interesting to play given the experimental specs.
  5. T8 French DD Le Terrible

    Because Tashkent although missing her main gun mounts, was running at normal displacement due to ballast (the difference from contractual delivery displacement and what they ran the trials on conveniently added up to the weight of the missing armament). I don't know how many times people need to explain this to you and you keep dishonestly harping on the Tashkent's speed trial speed. A better example of poor consistency in game would be Lenningrad (where she gets speeds that literally damage the hull). Shimakaze's 40.9kt speeds were done at overload 79,000 shp instead of her rated 75,000 shp (vs. for example, Tashkent's 6hr trials where the in game speed is less than her 6hr average that was done without breaking the rated SHP). Furthermore, the 40.9kt speeds were not done at full displacement (as you claim), was done at a lighter than usual displacement than usual IJN standards (1/2 reserve feed/oil vs. 2/3). Washington Displacement was defined as exclusive of feed water or fuel oil due, so do explain how that is supposed to be representative of a combat ready load if said vessel has to carry fuel to make the speed trial run, but still come in at the same light(er) tonnage by Washington standard. He's not arguing that the 45knot speed never happened. He's arguing that it's not a realistic speed given the ultra light displacement (that if they had to run the trials at "Washington Displacement" but instead, in place of the x hundred tons of fuel you give up shells and etc.) especially given it was a derived, corrected value value and a number clearly massaged by more continental navies like the French and Italians when ocean going navies like the USN, RN, and IJN had to run trials with more realistic displacements due to endurance concerns. Furthermore, he's simply saying that WG not giving her the 45kt speed at what was the equivalent of the in-game French flavor Engine Boost conditions (20% boost in game vs almost 25-30% SHP overload on trials so quite fitting tbh), is not somehow slighting the Marine Nationale. It's is in line with the vast majority of the ships in game where they were all given speeds that were either their max speed in combat operations (for example, Iowa's pre-buff speed of 30.7, all of the German dreadnaughts), or a trial speed sans safe overload.
  6. T8 French DD Le Terrible

    Mikedrop
  7. T8 French DD Le Terrible

    How bout you substantiate your claim like Phoenix_JZ did before just dismissing someone's statement. Not to mention, there seems to be a discrepancy between how the three of you define flank speed (and whether or not IJN/USN ships had their trial safe overload speeds used) where it would Aetreus and Phoenix doesn't seem to work under the idea that safe overload under extremely light trials displacement as "Flank" while you seem to while they seem to operate under the assumption that best speed under combat loads sans safe overload (as a general rule of thumb for the original two navy lines). Mind you it would seem that "Flank Speed" is an US term and UK/Commonwealth navies supposedly operated without it which possibly is leading to this confusion here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flank_speed Also, if you're saying safe overload + trial displacement is flank speed. Tashkent made her under the same condition (again, even though she lacked mounts, she had ballast conveniently totaling the weight of said missing mounts) than any of the Fantasques without blasting past her engine powerplant rating (130,000shp) over her 6 hour trials. By your definition, she's not running at flank speed then.
  8. Iowa/Missouri speed mistake?

    The author literally qualified his statement saying this was never substantiated and was essentially hearsay from the crew. Stop misrepresenting the author.
  9. Iowa/Missouri speed mistake?

    Why do people even take bsbr's bait...
  10. Iowa/Missouri speed mistake?

    Another bsbr whine thread, much wow, so thoughtful.
  11. T8 French DD Le Terrible

    IIRC, even though she was running trials without mounts delivered, she had compensating ballast (because I doubt the Russians just wanted to give a freebie bonus to the Italians).
  12. I see why cruisers are so OP now

    Why is it that all whine posts have such a similar writing style.
  13. The in game pen tables for the 16"50 match pretty closely with the 16"/50s USN empirical tables..... I don't know what kind of pen buff you want on top of that.
  14. Why is this even an issue.... Never understood the hate for paper ships.
  15. Japanese CL line?

    Oh nice. I just assumed we would just be seeing a repeat of the arcs we see from Kongo's 2ndaries.
×