Jump to content

khaenn35

Members
  • Content Сount

    20,095
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5145
  • Clan

    [SPTR]

Community Reputation

697 Excellent

About khaenn35

  • Rank
    Admiral of the Navy
  • Birthday 07/02/2002
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    ka_henn@yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

12,195 profile views
  1. khaenn35

    reward from WG for nerfing your premium ship

    And which ship have they nerfed and not given refunds for? All of them have had refunds given in at least doubloons, if not monetary value. You should note, that the ships that are being nerfed are being nerfed because they are overperforming. You are lucky you are getting refunds for them in the first place. Again: you are a singular customer. No one cares on how you wave your wallet about, especially when said wallet-waving is in trying to take money back from WG.
  2. khaenn35

    Forum culture

    Hello there! First of all: Sincerely, thank you for being a great person and asking for feedback and trying to fix your supposed mistakes. With unpleasant attitudes in the forum on a rise such manners are really appreciated. The forums are rather formal in some ways: you are expected to use proper grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc when typing your posts, and to speak politely in most circumstances. Memes, pictures, the like are appreciated when used correctly, and of course offensiveness isn't tolerated in any way, be in slurs or insinuations. Arguing or debating on things related to the game should be taken formally: offensive remarks should be avoided and your points should be based with evidence or data - analogies are riskier but can bring about the same point - like in an actual debate. Hotheadedness/bluntness can be present with certain individuals (e.g Lert) when arguing points/giving opinions, but they mean no harm and you should look at their points instead: most, if not all of them, are genuinely nice characters you could have a drink with. The intricacies of data and the accepted understandings between the people who debate, you can pick up along the way. Questions or opinions provided, of course, should be asked or given courteously and politely, and details provided are again appreciated. Certain things that aren't accepted would be claiming the existence of hackers/cheaters, adding submari- ah [edited]. or naming and shaming people who have offended you in game - this can be in the form of words, screenshots of the game, etc. Wishing to show certain characters performing badly should be with their names rubbed out. You are better off, however, writing a ticket to support for such cases. One of the biggest things you should have for better communication or wishing to join clans would be the Communication Program Discord. You are recommended to join the Clan Embassy server for your best experience in that field. Enjoy your stay here! I am free to approach should you wish to post more enquiries in PMs or Discord.
  3. khaenn35

    Stan Lee is dead, aged 95.

    May he rest in peace. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stan-lee-marvel-comics-legend-721450
  4. khaenn35

    Little White Mouse

    This reply was sponsored by Mouse's Soups Inc.
  5. khaenn35

    Little White Mouse

    I'm going to say this having defended and debated Mouse. Note not just the bugs, but the fact that she is in a position of authority to have it changed quickly and that turning circle tests can take some time to accomplish. But, those aren't the most significant. What is significant is the sheer time put into those tests, and how they are PUBLISHED such as to make it helpful for the community. As for "stepping on the numbers", here's the thing: THESE ARE OPINION PIECES. Opinion pieces that go through a large amount of testing, laid-out analysis, and finally a general consensus for the game. As I have said before: a researcher can be wrong through wrong analysis of the data provided to him through testing, but that doesn't mean that he is not accurate - he doesn't know for certain and this is but a theory that fits the data with the least flaws according to what he knows. As for "Konig Albert not good"... hang on a minute, what's THIS? König Albert WR 57.82 % Avg Frags1.24 damage 36 670 Avg Planes0.08 K/D 2.48 Nassau: WR 52.59 % Avg Frags 1.02 Avg damage29 851Avg planes0.03 K/D 1.89 Bellerophon WR:50.71 % Avg Frags0.86 Avg damage 28 742 Avg planes 0.08 K/D 1.58 Turenne: WR 50.55 % Avg Frags 0.82 Avg Damage25 806 Avg planes 0.01 K/D 1.50 Kawachi: WR 50.20 % Avg frags0.72 Avg Damage19 581 Avg planes0.04 K/D1.20 South Carolina: WR 49.25 % Avg Frags 0.67 Avg Damage 20 550 Avg planes 0.02 K/D 1.17 You are actually right in some way about the Huanghe, a 53.6%er with a very good damage treshold when compared to, say, the Perth. Even if the Huanghe has traits that would lend it the above its still a good ship in pure data. As for GZ: when it was introduced, it was so horrible it shouldnt have been in the game in the first place. The review was made to make an excellent protest from one of the most respected CCs in the game: refusing to make one due to how bad it was. As for followers: while she has a cult following, she doesn't call in others to defend her - I defend her with my own initiative. People defend her because we see her as someone who should be defended due to the quality of her ideas and opinions. Nobody gives a crap about what the [edited] you say. They give a crap on how you say it, and one of them is in excellently-detailed, nice-to-read reviews backed up with hard data and analysis. Even with differing opinion, these still remain good.
  6. khaenn35

    Caption the profile image above you.

    Wait a minute, doesn't he already have a bone? What do y- ohhh...
  7. khaenn35

    Premium Ship Review #112 - Le Terrible

    Been away for a bit, what's th- ... Oh dear god more ships I can't hope to ever hit. Very nice (and amusing) Review, Mouse. Thank you!
  8. "Chunk" from Hood's Screw/Propeller This is a chunk of manganese bronze. It came from one of Hood's starboard screws (propellers). Both screws were damaged during the January 1935 collision with battle cruiser H.M.S. Renown off Spain. The bronze has been inscribed "HOOD V RENOWN OFF AROSA 23-1-35". This was in the possession of the Hood family until 2006, when Lord Hood kindly donated it to the Hood Association. This is one of a small number of known surviving propeller "chunks" or "nuggets" (similarly engraved) from Hood. Hood was rammed in the port side quarterdeck by the battlecruiser Renown on 23 January 1935. The damage to Hood was limited to her left outer propeller and an 18-inch (460 mm) dent, although some hull plates were knocked loose from the impact. Temporary repairs were made at Gibraltar before the ship sailed to Portsmouth for permanent repairs between February and May 1935. Think this has anything to do with it? "Remember, the name of place where we met last time..." and "The clues wear camouflage and hide at the bottom."
  9. I'll actually shift this discussion to discord, to focus on the American part here. See ya there.
  10. The question was which was best, of which your definition was "which BATTLESHIP distinguished itself best in the lines of battle", while mine was "which BATTLESHIP was the most technologically advanced and superior in performance". As I said, I tried to end the argument as you attempted to use the earlier definition, of which I agreed to, versus my definition, which I think is the one most subscribed to here and which most followed. I could very much say that the Warspite's career paled in significance against the Victory. But the Victory is not a Battleship the same way an SSN or a Missile Cruiser is. I very much understand what you are going for, and by your own standards you are correct: but I think I follow the standards of the majority who go for best in performance, especially in relation to this video.
  11. I'm going to drop the discussion here as it's not going to end. We are on different pages, and you are way too into your story of "Warspite is the best Battleship, NO COMPETITIORS". I've said time and time again that performance-wise the Iowa was superior, and with an Iowa or a Yamato against a Warspite the Warspite would be wiped. There is no problem with this at all: the Warspite was a relic of another age and is to be respected as that Relic: HMS Victory is to be respected even if she would be screwed against a modern speedboat with an AK-47. But that doesn't make the fact that the Iowas were simply better performance-wise wrong. Good to know. Thank you.
  12. I've not the knowledge of many of the people above, but I'm pretty sure someone already corroborated my claim that the L/55 has better penetrations with the same shells: we have already established that the argument is by a tank-to-tank basis, because if there was the inclusion of Military procedure the US would win hands down as they have the resources to maintain the numbers of their troops. Along with the whole argument ongoing with "DU<=>tungsten". As for a tank to tank basis... Going by Wikipedia The Leopard is a full 20% cheaper, weighs (from what we know) less than the Abrams from latest sources, has a gun with superior penetration although to note multiple things pulling it back, is almost equal from what we know in mobility and logistics (engine goes to the Abrams clearly but by a small margin from what I know, with the Abrams designed from the outset to be multi-fuel). I see parity in armor (The steel of the Leopard is apparently interpreted from the famous Chobham ceramic, superiority to the Leopard) Superiority to the Leopard? "The protection of M1A2 SEP is a frontal turret armor estimate of 940–960 mm vs APFSDS and 1,320–1,620 vs HEAT, glacis estimate of 560–590 mm vs APFSDS and 510–1,050 vs HEAT, and lower front hull estimate of 580–650 mm vs APFSDS and 800–970 vs HEAT" versus "the armour of the Leopard 2A4 is believed to provide protection equivalent to 700 mm armour steel (RHA) against kinetic energy penetrators and 1000 mm RHA against shaped charge warheads." I dunno in this case if Wikipedia is correct. Anyway: I'm seeing longer operational range for the Leopard, but she is a bigger target (3.0m vs 2.4m? Damn that's a hell of a difference). However, we see here that the Leopard does seem to have operational parity (I have zero, ZERO idea about logistics and possible defects), and with the Leopard being cheaper in general... I'm inclined to believe that the Leopard is the superior tank.
  13. khaenn35

    Caption the profile image above you.

    ... **** this.
  14. khaenn35

    The Soverigndawg Blog.

    ... Someone get me a bottle of something.
×