Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

440 Excellent

About legoboy0401

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/01/2001
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    (Where else?) The TARDIS.
  • Interests
    Doctor Who, as referenced by my profile pic, and World of Warships. Not too interested in World of Tanks, even though it was the first WG product I played. It sure has gone down hill since I played it last.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,916 profile views
  1. Color me disappointed that I don't even own a Tier VIII,(so that I could say I'm close to getting a Tier IX) much less a Tier IX or X so I could ACTUALLY PLAY the new mode.
  2. Is MISSOURI coming back?

    Indeed. But also, for a game as heavily meme'd as this one, though, not owning a single meme-boat is an unpardonable sin.
  3. Is MISSOURI coming back?

    I think you are confusing me to the one I was responding to. I do not own her, and I want both her and her credit earning capability. Yes, I'm probably in the minority, BUT THOSE CREDIT EARNING MEME GAMES! I WANT IN!
  4. Subs might underperform

    To be clear, Periscope depth you can still fire, just not below periscope depth. Honestly, I think that having that always be the rule is just dumb. If the Sub is using it's Hydro, it really should unlock the torps for firing below periscope depth for the duration of the consumable. Also, completely unrelated, they REALLY need to give Subs a DD duration and cooldown DCP. Right now it appears to be either Cruiser or BB cooldown, but DD duration, and that is TOTALLY unacceptable given how little HP subs get in the first place.
  5. Subs might underperform

    That can't fire fully submerged. So its very biased in favor of counterplay, rather than of the Subs, (many players feared that sub gameplay would be very biased in favor of subs, and against counterplay(weak counterplay), and still fear it) I believe WG said that Subs will not have ramming mechanics, at least at first. Air time is a problem that I have been pondering ever since the announcement, and it still bugs me. 90 seconds just isn't enough, and as you said, the DD can simply wait 90 seconds, or (if depth charges are allowed to go that deep) not even bother waiting and utterly dominate and destroy the sub with depth charges, unless the su can get an island between them and the DD so their Submarine can surface to recharge their air supply(unlikely, given many Submarines' slow submerged speed) 120 seconds, MAYBE 150 seconds, would be much more fair and balanced, given how strong counterplay looks to be. All this is WIP, of course, and can still change for the better, and make this whole conversation obsolete.
  6. USS Arizona and HMS Hood

    This is true. She really needs AR(Adrenaline Rush) and EL(Expert Loader) for her captain.
  7. Is MISSOURI coming back?

  8. Which nations would get Subs first?

    This is not true, actually, but the examples where they did well at it are few and far in between, and usually those instances took place in shallow harbors, where depth charges are super accurate and super effective against subs anyway. The Emily was actually a decent ASW plane, there just weren't enough of them, and those that there were were usually out on scouting/recon missions.
  9. Premium Ship Review - USS Marblehead

    Exactly. Murmansk is fine as is. She's no longer OP or the strongest Tier V Cruiser(and she can't see Tier IIIs anymore) but nor is she anywhere near as pathetic and lacking in options as the regular Omaha somewhat, but ESPECIALLY Marblehead, which is a shame, because IRL, Marblehead did have an interesting service history, unlike Murmansk which just rotted away mostly.
  10. Premium Ship Review - USS Marblehead

    The former: yes please. The latter: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
  11. It would also force you to come up for air with in 15-20 seconds, which(I might add) is also broken, in the other direction.
  12. Note also that I didn't mention torp duels, only that Sub V Sub submerged would be the only kind of Sub gameplay to be completely(or nearly) invisible from the surface. Honestly though, I can see two reasons why they have locked the torps fully submerged: A: balance. They don't want to repeat CVs where the claims of "NO FIAR! I CANT RETAILATE(OR HET HES SHEP) BUT HE CAN HET MUH SHEP!" have always been rampant(and completely unfounded). B: Sub V Sub submerged in this game would SUCK, bad. You can still miss enemy Subs in Cold Waters, and that's with torpedoes with active sonar and homing capability!
  13. This is true, ramming will be the thing. I wonder why, though. Did they mention why? As I said earlier on another thread, Subs will only be balanced if at a certain fully submerged depth, DEPTH CHARGES ARE USELESS AGAINST THEM, as fully submerged Subs can't retaliate, they can't realistically run away(too slow) they can be visible enough via hydro or assured acquisition, and the time that they can be fully submerged is relatively short.
  14. Yes, but this meme isn't very accurate. Only Sub v Sub would be this way, and it's like that(yet still entertaining enough) in Cold Waters. Sub v ANY surface ship or CV is a HECK of a lot more interesting to look at, even in a WWII setting rather than a Cold War setting.
  15. Submarines in WOWS

    This is real. WG actually announced it. Subs are coming for initial testing in this year's Halloween event, and then if they turn out to be fun, well liked, and most importantly, balanced, they probably will be coming sometime late next year.