Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

4,807 Superb


About Crucis

  • Rank
    Admiral of the Navy
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,360 profile views
  1. Crucis

    Snowflake Steel Amount

    Excellent. Thanks, paradat.
  2. Crucis

    Snowflake Steel Amount

    I'd keep the Essex, even if you don't want to play her now (except for the snowflake). After the rework, she'll be a tier 10 CV.
  3. Crucis

    Snowflake Steel Amount

    YeOlde, I have 195M credits available, and am willing to buy quite a few t9's if necessary. But I'd rather avoid having to have to buy them all at once, just because I'd rather not drive my credit balance down too far. There might be some T9's that I wouldn't mind buying just to have, but there are others that I probably wouldn't want to keep. And I might just buy them to get the snowflake, and not even bother fitting them with upgrade modules. Just get an easy win in coop with them, get the steel, and re-sell them.
  4. Crucis

    For Wargaming: The straw that broke the camel's back

    For me, the thing is this. If the Colorado is tier 7, and the WV41 is tier 6, will the WV44 be an OP tier 7 or a slow as hell tier 8? At tier 7, some people would be willing to buy it. But as a tier 8, it seems to me that it would be almost underpowered, in part due to its slow speed and having to face tier 9's and 10's. Some people might buy it to be a port queen, i.e. just for looks. But how would its sales be for people who don't care about her history? There'd be some who wouldn't want her no matter what because of her slow speed. And some who wouldn't want her due to her having to face tier 10's with that slow speed. Personally, I still wish that WG could give the US standards a non-historical speed buff, because IMO, they're just not all that enjoyable to play when facing similar tier BBs that have unrealistically boosted BB like the French and German ones. If they can have ahistorical speeds, why not USN standard BBs?
  5. Crucis

    For Wargaming: The straw that broke the camel's back

    First, let me say that I haven't down (or up) voted your post, nor will I. There are things here I don't agree with, but you didn't go ballistic, which is nice. Side note going in: Remember that the NA server population is a small fraction of the size of the Russian server population. So, it's probably more than a bit unrealistic to think that our opinions are going to matter nearly as much as those of the RU servers. The GZ: I wasn't aware that there were any at WG who were blaming the players for that. That's news to me. Not saying that you're wrong, just that I've never heard that one. There are plenty of things to say about the GZ. But to me, they owned up to the mistake and did the right thing, though I do kind of wish that they'd released it for sale already. Regardless, my attitude here is let it go. Mistakes were made, lessons were (hopefully) learned, and apologies were given. Carriers in general: Aside from the fact that I'd rather they weren't in the game, but accept that they are, I'm of the opinion that WG was too hell bent on maintaining far too distinct differences between the US and IJN CVs. They seemed to reject the most obvious way to balance things between the two CV lines, which would have been to make squadron sizes the same. This way, the only differences between carrier lines would have been the quality of the planes themselves. It might have seemed too generic to some, but I'd have fixed the sq sizes at the same number, had the same number of squadrons per CV (by tier). And had the national flavor of USN CVs be DBs while the IJN's flavor would have been TBs. And in a 4 squadron loadout, the USN would have 1 Ftr, 1 TB, and 2 DBs, while the IJN would have had 1 FTR, 2 TBs, and 1 DB. AP bombs could be available, but with not nearly the same accuracy and/or damage potential. And actually, I'd have probably gone in one of two routes. Either remove fighters entirely and keep manual attacks. Or keep fighters, but remove all manual attacks. Regarding AA, I'd personally remove DefAA and let the innate AA capabilities of each ship stand on its own without depending on an overly hokey consumable. Staggered Releases: I have zero problem with this. The Cossack was available right away in a basic package. If the only way you could get a campaign reward ship early was in a overly costly bundle, you might have more of a case, but I think that WG has learned their lesson here because in some of the videos where this sort of thing gets mentioned, IIRC, they seem to understand that some people just don't have the time to grind out a free premium but are willing to buy the basic package (i.e. time is money). On the flip side here, they haven't offered up the Dreadnought in a basic package yet, but I'm sure that they will. Personally, I think that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Gift Ships: They've stopped giving away true gift ships because I think they've noticed that a number of players will just sell a low tier gift ship because they see the port slot as more valuable than the gift ship. Regarding the KamiR, that wasn't a gift ship. It was tied to an event/campaign early on, "project R", maybe? I don't think that WG not giving away ships has anything to do with a lack of generosity. I think that it's a case of too many players having a lack of appreciation for such gift ships, i.e. too many selling the ships for the credits and to get the port slot. If that's the case, I can see WG saying to themselves "why bother?". They might as well just give a gift of a port slot for all the gratitude they get. The Incentive's Incident: I don't remember anything about them gifting De Grasse's though maybe this was 2 years ago. I do remember them gifting the GCs. But the reality that some people here need to accept is that this is a fairly normal kind of practice to bring players back to the game. Sure, some will whine, what about loyal players? Well, the loyal players get to see all the various campaigns where WG gives them a premium in exchange for some grinding, not to mention various other things year round. Missing Ships: I think that it's pretty common knowledge that a big part of the problem with the Italian lines is related to access to the Italian naval archives. Should WG just hold off on producing, say, a Russian BB line until after an Italian line, even if that may push it out a couple of years due to these archive difficulties? Sorry, but that'd be silly. WV' 41: They have their plans. And if the WV41 is in the plans, that's the way it's going to be. Also, this is probably just an NA server thing. I expect that this is a non-issue on the other servers. Ghost, whether you like it or not, you are coming off as a little entitled here. Not as bad as others in rant posts, but a little. As for "whining", it's a complaint or rant thread, so, whatever. No biggie. The big thing to remember is that the NA server is a small fraction of the RU server and our opinions probably aren't listened to as much as theirs. Regardless, you wrote a pretty cogent, well-written piece (even if I disagreed with much of it), so good for you.
  6. Crucis

    Two Thoughts on WGfest 2018

    The 2 Italian premium BBs aren't all that bad. Sure, the Roma's guns probably have too much velocity and penetration, but that's something one can work around with a little forethought. But the two Italian premium cruisers just aren't very impressive. It seems like their best feature is their overall speed, which while nice doesn't actually kill the enemy (though it can get you into trouble if you overextend which happens very easily with such good speed). Arguably, their 12 km torps might be seen as a bit of an upside, though with their low speed, their ability to hit anything at long range is questionable. Still, I will say that the 12 km slow torps are an interesting and (currently) unique feature for the Italian premium cruisers.
  7. Crucis

    Please Add..

    Frankly, too much work goes into them. It's to the point that the old saying "perfect is the enemy of good" comes into play. They spend too much time trying to perfect maps that they don't add a number of new "good" maps. And I'd rather have 4 times as many "good" maps than the current number of "perfect" maps.
  8. Crucis

    Update from WG Fest: Soviet Battleships line

    Because I think that a pretty fair number of people wished that all BB lines started at tier 2 with a pre-dreadnought.
  9. I also don't care about the Twitlight event. Not interested in any mode that includes a friggin' shrinking map.
  10. Crucis

    Snowflake Steel Amount

    I'm interested in knowing whether you have to have the ships actually in your port when the update drops, or can you add them while the event is in progress? I have a few regular tier 9's, but haven't kept them all. And while I have a fairly large credit balance, I'd hate to have to buy all of the tier 9 ships all at once. It'd be so much easier to buy 1 or 2, knock off their snowflakes, then sell them and grab another pair of tier 9's, rinse and repeat as necessary.
  11. Crucis

    CV Rework Going Live early 2019

    In this game, probably none as massive as the CV rework. In World of Tanks, I'd say that the semi-recent arty rework was pretty damned major.
  12. Crucis

    2019 Ranked

    Sounds more like a way to get people to spend doubloons to transfer their highly skilled tier 10 captains into tier 9 ships. Regardless, I expect to see a lot of the premium ships of this tier, because they're so good. Sadly though, the only premium tier 9 DD at this moment is the Black and it's a steel ship. I could buy the Black right now, but only at the cost of putting off any chance to get the Stalingrad or some other tier 10 steel ship for a long while. Flip side, as a player whose preferred ship type to play is DDs, I've been feeling rather tempted to get the Black rather than Stalingrad, etc., but just don't know if the Black would be worth it, given that its torpedoes are SO damned slow for a tier 9.
  13. I'm not so sure that there's a single proper armored cruiser in the game. True Armored Cruisers would have gun batteries similar to pre-dreadnoughts, though with a bit smaller guns but faster ships. Their primary main guns would be about 8" guns, with a dual turret fore and aft. But they'd also have a bunch of "secondary" main guns of a slightly smaller caliber, say around 5 or 6" guns, in a layout similar to the Mikasa's. And that's the problem. They'd be faster versions of the Mikasa with slightly smaller guns. In a sense, they'd be the heavy cruisers or battlecruisers of the pre-dreadnought era.
  14. Crucis

    Buff montana pls

    This is entirely possible. I think that what would really be required would be some sort of drilling down in the stats to be able to, say, look at the performance of tier 10 BBs in the hands of players with overall WRs above 50%, 55%, 60+%, etc. Try to get some proof of your seemingly common sense assertion.