Jump to content

thewargod2000

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    24352
  • Clan

    [5D4]

Community Reputation

56 Good

About thewargod2000

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday 09/28/1976
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Granby, CO
  • Interests
    Bringing order from chaos by ganking horde. Guns, money and women.

    My battleship will sink you. Deal with it.

Recent Profile Visitors

913 profile views
  1. This post, as the title implies, is about the accurate naming and portrayals of mostly US ships that we have in game, in particular US battleships. Lets start at Tier 4. The USS Wyoming in game is actually the USS Arkansas. The USS Arkansas beta in game is actually the USS Wyoming. Why can we not get the names of these ships reversed to get an accurate portray? At Tier 6 we have the New Mexico, which seems to have very limited changes between the original hull and the modified hull and whose appearance is no where near accurate to it's appearance late in war, like every other US battleship. In fact the most advanced hull is the 1941 USS New Mexico. In 1945 any ship of the New Mexico class had hundreds of additional AA mounts on the ships. So why can't we get this in game? I mean we produced the USS Texas, USS California and even the USS Colorado with these AA mounts in game and they have to face off against the same CVs. So why can't we get an accurate representation of this class? And since we are on Tier 6 here I have another question. Why is it that every US Premium other than the USS Texas below Tier 8 is a ship that sank at Pearl Harbor? USS California sank, USS West Virginia sank, USS Oklahoma sank, USS Arizona sank. What about the USS Nevada, the USS Pennsylvania, the USS Tennessee or the USS Maryland? How about something that wasn't utterly destroyed and went on to have a productive career? And how about their updated models for the war in 1944/1945? And if we are going to get a USS West Virginia 1944, as the developers have promised, why did we get a 1941 USS West Virginia instead of a USS Maryland? Would it of killed you to have renamed the ship so we don't have more Belfast 43s at higher tiers than Belfast 51s? Give us one ship with one name and eliminate the confusion. And my argument is that the naming should be accurate to the ship. At Tier 7 why after all these years, updates, changes and visual ship improvements can we not get an accurate USS Colorado model? Seriously? Years ago we asked you to add the shields to the 5" guns Colorado carried. This still hasn't happened. Why? I have yet to hear a plausible explanation from the developers as to why this hasn't happened. Why is the USS Lexington still called Lexington and not USS Saratoga, which is the ship it accurately portrays? Is there anyone in the accuracy department? What is really going on in Russia? These issues vex me. I have more things I can bring up but today I'd just like to stick to these issues.
  2. This ship is still terrible. It needs to be altered for it to be playable. Lets face it no one will play it except to level it. This entire line for that matter. WG screwed up big time.
  3. Kansas is horrible. OMG does this ship suck. You are waaaaayy to slow to move across any T9 or T10 map you get on to be effective in combat and given how much WG likes to put T8 in T10 matches, you will be there most of the time. You guns are horrible. They average worse pen and accuracy than the Colorado. Your armor is horrible and everything goes through you like a knife through butter. Your dispersion is horrible as you can completely miss battleships and carriers sitting still at 8km. This ship is god awful and it is not a good representative of how the South Dakota 1920 ship would have been. For one thing the South Dakota 1920 would have had the 16"/50 cal MK 2 guns, not the 16"/45 cal Mk7 guns (which do not even exist as the MK7 was the Iowa's guns. For the US 16" guns the MK2 and the MK7 are the 50 cals and the rest are 45 cal. The Colorados were built with the MK1 and upgraded to the MK 6 in WWII and the NC and SD 1943 had them as well). The reload on these guns is not 40 seconds. The damage on the MK2 guns is far superior to the 45 caliber guns. This ship and the Minnesota need to be taken down and reworked. As is no one will play these damn things other than to just level through them and I can't imagine the Vermont will be much better. This ship is crap and it needs to get fixed (lower reload to 35 seconds, improve accuracy, add 50 cal guns or increase it's speed or some combination therewithin) or it needs to go away entirely. This line is a very poor representation of America's naval power. I realize you people already screwed up the OP russian ships, don't screw with out line and we are the main people who play this game.
  4. We would appreciate that. thewargod2000 5D Fleet Admiral
  5. All the new ships look like a derivative of the South Dakota 23 class
  6. I would like all of you to check out the speed on all the new US Battleships in the line.... then lets talk :)
  7. they dropped a supertester link and a bunch of californias... then gave us the new USN BB line split
  8. CA should be T6. End of story.
  9. Well when you think about it the ships are already modeled and WG is all about reusing work they've already done...
  10. I think it could be a CV line split...
  11. Fix this goddamn crap. I'm tired of scoring hits and getting no damage constantly against broadside targets.
  12. So I get that not every hit can do damage. However, when you can hit a ship 19 times and do 2000 damage there is a problem. A really big problem. This is not the only game this has happened to me in. I know others who are having the same problem. It doesn't seem to matter where you hit the enemy ship at. Perfectly broadside, angled, from the front......whatever, it makes no difference at all. It seems the only way to do damage now in a battleship is to use HE. YO WARGAMING YOU REALLY NEED TO ****** THIS. Now.
  13. thewargod2000

    Tier VI, West Virginia (Dev Blog)

    WARGAMING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GIVING US THE USS WEST VIRGINIA. HOWEVER, COULD WE GET THE 1944 HULL. IT LOOKS BETTER AND THE STATS ARE BETTER AND THE SHIP ACTUALLY HAS AA. WE DO NOT NEED AN A HULL COLORADO! THANK YOU!
  14. thewargod2000

    What we know about Ships: Updated 05/04/2017

    this page needs some serious updates on those charts on the first post
×