sulghunter331

If you collect three or more containers, you can select the "Open All Containers" option and skip the animations of all the containers opening.

I am not sure if the developers have ever been directly asked this question, but why is it that radar and hydro can see directly through land masses? Clearly the game runs a line-of-sight check to tell if there's a land mass between two ships within visual range of one or the other. It is simply irksome how a possible avenue of counter-play to a mechanic is neglected. Destroyer players have been crying to the heavens for years about how radar and hydro invalidates much of their strength at the push of a button, so what purpose do the developers have to not include such a check for radar and hydro?

The main idea behind this was to simply have an IJN ship that filled a similar, if not the same, niche as Siegfried (i.e. Large cruiser with few but exceptionally powerful and accurate guns) while perhaps having the IJN cruiser flair for torpedoes, HE shells, and stealth. As a matter of fact, the IJN actually had the B65 cruiser design modified from mounting nine 12" guns to mounting six 14" guns when they had discovered the existence of the Alaska-class Large Cruisers. Obviously, war time demands for more carriers led to the B65 being shelved and basically forgotten.

As much as I would like a high-speed, trimmed-down Kongo at tier 9/10, I think a fourth turret may be a bridge too far with the IJN torps and possible high stealth rating.

Brief: Azuma variant armed with six 14" guns in three turrets, in a similar vein as Siegfried's six 15" guns. Was watching a recent youtube video on USS Alaska when it reminded me of the B65 variant that was drawn up when the IJN discovered that the USN was building the Alaska class cruisers. It was effectively a beefed up B65 armed with six 14" guns versus the nine 12" guns originally of designed to counter the Alaska cruisers. Considering the game already has Odin, Siegfried, and Agir, I think it would make sense to round out Azuma and Yoshino with a third sister that fills out a similar niche as Siegfried, especially since there is historical material for said variant. No idea on a name though.

Well. we already have the hybrid ships, so it wouldn't be that hard of a stretch now.

How about a skin that lets you create a new roundel, number or insignia for your squadrons? I figure it would be similar to what World of Tanks has for customizing the appearance of each tank.

Dear god I hope you don't mean fighter strafing because that was the single most asinine thing the devs cooked up in regards to the pre-rework CVs. More and more this thread is reading as "dump the rework CVs and bring back the old RTS-style CVs". CV players could actively protect their teams from enemy air attacks with fighter squadrons, instead of aerial minefields that only brain dead neanderthals could fall for. Powerful AA could in fact de-fang or even shutdown enemy air attacks as squadrons get whittled down. DFAA actually did something besides making slightly bigger numbers (widened attack spreads, making it easier to evade ordnance drops). There were mods/upgrades to boost AA range. I do like this idea, perhaps one could switch the DP mounts between either anti-surface duty or anti-air duty to the exclusion of the other.

You've reminded me of when we could do precisely what you suggested against pre-rework CVs. This was back when AA batteries, under automatic control, would prioritize the closest squadron of aircraft to apply damage to. This meant that a CV could send in a sacrificial fighter squadron to eat the brunt of the AA damage while the other attack squadrons moved in unmolested. To counter this, the player would have to ctrl+click the squadron carrying the ordnance to avoid wasting AA firepower on the fighter squadron.

As someone who's been around since the closed Beta, I'm just going to say this: Before the CV rework when a CV annihilated my ship in a simultaneous cross drop with three or four squadrons of attack planes, I wasn't mad. Certainly I was upset that I just got fragged, but I knew of, and respected, the amount of skill and effort such a maneuver required to pull off correctly. I held that CV player in higher regard than any BB player that b*tch slapped my citadel, the CA/CL player that burned me to the waterline, or the DD player that nailed me with a torpedo spread. After the CV rework when a CV finally brings me down after many waves of air attacks, I know exactly how little skill that took, by comparison to the pre-rework CV. It just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when I know that all that miserable dingus needed to pull that off was to know to avoid some black puff clouds that I had no part in making.

This system would be pretty useful... if carriers had hard limits on aircraft reserves. While yes, mounting casualties do exhaust reserves and slow the replenishment, knowing the casualty figures does comparatively little in the tactical sense that you imply. The most effective change would be to return DFAA's ability to scatter/scramble an attack squadron's ordnance drop pattern(anyone remember when that was a thing?). A minor variation would be to allow the AA focus fire zones to slow the aiming speed of attack squadrons. This would make the carrier/surface combatant interaction less one-sided as it is currently.

As much as I agree that new subs would allow for more content than re-balanced IJN DDs, I'd like to point out what kind of R.O.I. the devs are looking at. Introducing the subs involved creating an entirely new type of combatant for the game with completely unique mechanics, going through all pre-existing maps to ensure sub compatibility, creating a new skill tree for sub captains, creating several new skills for ASW combat, and balancing all of that with already existing content within the game. The devs must have sunk an enormous amount of time, effort and resources into such a project, and they've yet to even so much as tease any premium submarines, or any premium ASW surface combatants. Considering all that the devs must have expended for the creation submarines in this game, it makes me wonder if it would have made more business sense to simply readjust some values for the IJN DDs and possibly dusting off some premium IJN DDs as interest in them grows again.

After having played a fair number of games with the submarines and figuring out effective tactics for submarines, it occurred to me that the tactics that I had thought of were effectively the same as those that I use for IJN DDs. Now, I figure personal habits are a strong factor in the similarity of tactics, but the fact remains that submarines and IJN DDs share the same niche: stealthy, fragile platforms from which torpedoes are launched against enemy capital ships. Both rely upon stealth as the primary means of avoiding damage and enabling the approach to the targets, torpedoes are relied upon for dealing major damage against enemy ships, and being spotted spells disaster for the player's vessel. The biggest difference is obviously that the submarine can submerge to increase its stealth and avoid most forms of damage. This minor brainwave quickly reminded me to just how much time, effort and resources the developers have expended in bringing submarines into the game, and all the hoopla their inclusion had stirred up. For what purpose? To create a stealthy platform tailored to counter capital ships with torpedoes? Main tech-line IJN DDs are already stealthy platforms focused around torpedo usage, although a long history of nerfs had left them in a severely weakened state. If the developers really wanted stealthy torpedo platforms to counter excessive battleship populations, why did they create an entirely new type of vessel in the game when the mere adjustment of a handful of values on a preexisting group would have largely achieved the same goal? Reducing the spotting range for IJN DD torpedoes alone would make them much better at curbing large numbers of battleships in the servers. A simple numbers buff, versus creating a whole new type of unit that required map and skills overhauls. If all of this effort was meant to pave the way for a new series of premium boats, just how many premiums can they make that wouldn't end up being a clone of the same two or three tech tree submarines? It would end up being worse than the Myoko and Omaha clones.

Yeah I thought that was the case, and it would seem logical, I just haven't heard or seen anything to confirm that. Since it has taken me quite some time to build up this stock of free exp, I don't want to spend such large amounts of it lightly.

Sitting on a pile of free EXP, and I am mulling over the following question: Should I spend the free exp on getting Research Bureau points on tech lines, or should I save it for some future free EXP ship? The determining factor of this issue is whether or not there are any more purely Free EXP ships coming along, or if the Research Bureau ships are the only ones in store for the future. I would like to hear any advice in this matter. For additional information, the only free exp ships that I can get currently are either the Azuma or the Agir, but I already have Yoshino and Odin, so I am not feeling any urge to acquire what is currently available.