Jump to content

_Sarcasticat_

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    19,046
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7143

Community Reputation

1,928 Superb

About _Sarcasticat_

  • Rank
    Admiral of the Navy
  • Birthday 10/09/2000
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Texas
  • Interests
    Not many.

WG

  • Position
    ---

Recent Profile Visitors

23,726 profile views
  1. _Sarcasticat_

    Include a "Ballistics" section in port

    There's plenty of advanced information not available in the game and can only be seen online, which is rather unfortunate. The argument I hear consistently on this topic is that it would provide an "overload" of information for new players (and quite a few existing ones). It's actually a very poor argument, particularly when weighed against the benefits. The path I would take regarding all of this would to place such information under a discrete "Advanced" tab in line with the ships' statistics. That, or "Additional Information" - something that tells the player that the information isn't particularly critical...although near half the time most players can't seem to list the detection range of their ship without pressing H. Regardless, your idea is good. I support it, though in a bit of an expanded form.
  2. Even then. I've tried, and I have more resources than almost anyone else.
  3. I like it. An old WoWs friend of mine and I discussed a possible all-12" USN large cruiser line at one point back in...2018 I think, utilizing a lot of the same designs. Of course this was back when we could have put the now-infamous Puerto Rico in as a tier 10. More depth into that would have made us realize that CA-2D might not have been the most viable pick for line consistency. You won't.
  4. Thanks random citizen for once again for emphatically reminding us the Pocket Battleships of the Deutschland class is obviously not proper terminology. But besides all that, I can't wait to see another Pocket Battleship in the game sometime.
  5. _Sarcasticat_

    ZF-2 AND Z-31 Designs

    I'll have to explain in full, I'm not one to leave myself vulnerable by hastily explaining only a portion of the issue - especially not here. Gotta get the big picture, right? Gotta make a sharp image too; no use in having a big picture if it's blurry. Buuuut it'll take some time, as all well-thought arguments should. Gotta break it apart, into the fine detail so that it may be examined, compared, and then annihilated via verbage. Perhaps even better ideas may suggested. Not all ideas are born equal. I am, of course, very much aware of the state of testing as all things go through (to varying degrees, with equally varying degrees of success) and a major change has, as we know, happened to ZF2. Probably in light of the unexpected backlash (I wonder who might have been the originating source of that, I wonder?), or maybe the change was simply the result of the quote to follow. Though it appears ZF2 (now ZF6) has taken a step further away from reality and closer to "How high can we push this thing so that we can make more money off of it?" - which of course, being in the tier 9 or 10 range means that it will go on sale or be available for a variety of resources which in turn are typically expensive to obtain immediately (conversion of FXP and coal from crates being the prime examples). One might not pay the entire cost of Coal/FXP but may expedite the process via the aforementioned methods which still brings in money while also filling the "endgame content" requirement. I'm going to stop this train of thought now before it gets too far, but just know that the German DD's could be much, much better and a lot less hated by both your historical community and those of us more knowledgeable with statistics to realize the inconsistencies and full extent of the usefulness these destroyers have. But if ZF2/ZF6 is anything to go by (along with WarGaming's longstanding record across all its titles) I do not hold hope that this line will improve...correctly (even I know this is a relative sentiment and I cannot hide that). What I and (upon discussion) others define as "correct", as hinted, will be explored somewhere else and at a later date. As someone who creates premium proposals, I've noticed the bar is quite low to strike an initial balance better than that of WarGaming. I hope to see you when I roll out this thread I've been dangling around. So unfortunate that I'm on a time crunch because of the announcement of this line; it was meant to be so much greater. tldr passionate about the topic, sensible enough to realize that there are better routes, big thread soon:tm:
  6. _Sarcasticat_

    Destroyer Detectability

    My guess is that they were blind firing him. Very correct, sir.
  7. _Sarcasticat_

    ZF-2 AND Z-31 Designs

    I have a lot of words for their new line. Very few of them positive. There are so many issues from both a historical and gameplay perspective, and I'm not particularly fond of what they've done. I hope I can elaborate on this soon and I will see you there along with many others. Based on my rate of progress this will likely be up sometime next week. So much to do, so many duty days to interfere with my plans.
  8. This could almost not be further from the truth. Unless of course you intend to give Juneau/San Diego SAP, much reduced ROF, correct HE (1,800 at 9% FC which is what the burst charge should correlate to), longer range, improved ballistics, MBRB, etc. Basically the only thing they have in common is a hull with similar armor layouts and 5" guns. Though Juneau/S.D. wouldn't - or shouldn't - have 32mm plating, and the 5" guns perform wildly differently. And Austin is a tier 10, Juneau/S.D. would be a tier 8. I've heard some ideas from LWM a long time ago on how to build S.D. into the game, and it doesn't have basically anything in common with Austin.
  9. _Sarcasticat_

    Victory Belles Trailer - Beta starts May 2021

    Quite exciting indeed. I'd seen their Kickstarter page a while back and investigated, but had forgotten. Investigating once again, I'm still impressed. The level and attention to detail in every aspect of the game is, put plainly, literally astounding. Actual armor penetration mechanics? Insane. (On character design): https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/blackchickenstudios/victory-belles/posts/1569240 I wish I had pledged sooner. I'm a massive sucker for art books of games like this one, and it's beyond saddening to me that I missed the ability to get the two that pledging $300 would have gotten me. I'm kicking myself still. There are issues that the game has, particularly with weapon/rigging models, that irks me to no end. Personal feelings towards how models should look also come into play. I haven't seen any game that actually has a class of ships that have the same rigging and general physique - or even a proper uniform. Maybe Kantai Collection comes close. Regardless, I consider this game an improvement over both KC and AL in all the right ways for someone such as myself. The other two can burn, this one has my personal approval. That's probably why I didn't hesitate to pledge 150 USD without blinking. Thanks for posting this, I'm (again) very excited to see this game coming out this year. It's been a long time coming.
  10. It's actually the Dual-Purpose gunnery radar sitting atop the bridge. Not the "mattress" looking radar on the mast; just below it, with the parabolic dish attached to the front. It provides High Angle (HA) and Low-Angle (LA) fire control for the main battery. It only helps if you HAVE guns capable of firing at high angle (Z-44 I'm looking at you). WG has a particular thing for adding the Flakleitgerat to ships, whether it belong there or not. Like ZF2.
  11. tmw the alteration of the turrets was to allow WG to place a Flakleitgerat on yet another design it doesn't belong on
  12. They may change it because I figure they never expected this backlash. Though if we found "better plans"...literally online, in the German Bundesarchiv. I wonder what "plans" they had to go off of. I already know. A sketch of ZF2 in Gröner's Die Deutsche Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945. They modified it (poorly) frol there.
  13. _Sarcasticat_

    Possible US Navy torpedo DD split

    Sorry mate, but you're never getting a flush-deck four-stacker to tier 7. Never in a million, kagillion years or with the best torpedoes in the game coming out of those tubes. You couldn't get it to tier 6 or even tier 5. You might be able to inflate the stats to tier 4. The upper tiers are pretty good. Gridley is faster than Bagley on pretty much the same tonnage but the weight says they should be tier 7 (Bagley) and tier 8 (Gridley) and that's almost stretching it for the Gridley. You're missing a tier 9 - I don't know enough about USN DD's to provide a suggestion - and Benham doesn't really belong at tier 10. It barely belongs at tier 9 with some juiced-up version of a German torpedo in 4x4. Really the line doesn't offer much in the sense of progression. If you split off from the Farragut to tier 7 (Bagley) ---> 8 (Gridley) ---> 9 (Benham?) --> 10 (Super USN torpedo ship design) you have no HP progression from tiers 6-9 and the number and type of guns remains the same as well. Characteristics like detection, maneuverability, etc would all be very similar. The major changes come from: A. Speed B. Type of torpedoes C. Gun ranges You can have a fourth in certain situations: D. Capability of consumables (say a consumable like TRB exists for them at tier 8+ and the reload time lessens at tier 9 and tier 10) A USN DD torpedo line concept is there, and can exist (I've seen people who know much more on USN designs than you or I talk about it) but this pretty much ain't it chief. Sorry I have to break it to you this way.
×