Jump to content

WanderingGhost

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    4,934
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11407
  • Clan

    [SSG]

Community Reputation

2,001 Superb

4 Followers

About WanderingGhost

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,126 profile views
  1. Akizuki played well already has monster AA, her guns can pen every inch of NC armour now with IFHE, with smoke. It doesn't really need anything.
  2. WanderingGhost

    Sending fighters

    Yes - you have to fly your Attack Planes (rockets), TB's or DB's to a location, then press the 'T' key for it to deploy which takes a few seconds. However you have to keep in mind that - They are extremely fragile, even the worst AA in game shred them, so if the teammate is within usually 5 km of a red ship (or going to be) it's pointless to drop them. They take time to deploy, and have to be in the right spot and angle to actually engage enemy planes. Once placed - they stay there till they either shoot down the same number of planes as in their group, time runs out, or they are shot down there is a mark on the map that indicates where they are so the enemy CV can try to avoid them. Basically - the consumable on planes is borderline useless now, unless you get the exact right timing or the red is being careless/reckless (at which point the way they can devastate planes is OP), the fighter consumable ships can carry and not running off alone using team AA is still, by far, superior. But as most players don't play CV's they don't comprehend that it takes about 30+ seconds to get to the ones usually crying for air cover, that if too close to red ships they just get shredded, etc. To say nothing of part of why they did this rework was they wanted CV players to focus on damage not spotting and babysitting.
  3. WanderingGhost

    New U.S. Battleship secondaries

    1. The secondaries are pointless at this time unless they overhaul the concept seeing as they want them to be fragile long range snipers even though SD 1920 has a thicker belt than Iowa, and the Tillman based ship has anywhere from thicker than SD to thicker than Yamato. 2. That would require Wargaming to have A: listened to us or B: actually have some semblance of creativity. Given it's already a fantasy ship they could have gone with 'What if the DP variant of the 6"/47 had started/happened sooner as it's still basically the same gun as the Cleveland's and Brooklyn's had in the late 30's. 4 twin mounts per side, gives you the 8x per side it would have had, bolsters AA, and gives it some serious secondary firepower - if attached to a ship capable of close range fighting.
  4. WanderingGhost

    Update 0.9.7 – German Carriers: Part 2

    So, I'll start with the positive I have to say good job on Graf Zeppelin 1940, I mean Lowenhardt, given this is the most historically accurate CV you've done in a while. For a change, I don't have a lot to complain about on that front actually - though I still got a couple complaints. Oh and don't worry Hapa - a friend got me the ship so I have technical feedback too, in fact some of it all ties with the history stuff. Now I have only one complaint in regards to accuracy with absolutely 0 balance implications and that's name. Kinda supposed to have a name of someone related to Zeppelins, just saying, but it's literally the least of my issues overall. First is the rockets. I'd honestly rather have what it actually says it has - High Explosive rockets. Cause yeah - Sprenggranate is just basically 'High Explosive' in German - yes some of us know better. But as is I don't know if these 'Sprenggrenate' are more 3 inch rockets like the RZ-73's or what - but they are underwhelming. even if it only means 2 per plane, 4 per flight, rather have the historically accurate (or more so) BR 21/Wfr. Gr 21 equipped, or an AP variant. If your not gonna do that - then could we please at least get the name right for both these and the tech tree counterparts - Panzergranate Rakete or shorten to Pzgr (Pz.Gr) Rakete to denote it as an Armour Piercing rocket. Bombs - well first off - maybe drop the 'AP' from the bombs cause they aren't. What I'm going to suggest next will likely be hated by both those with the CV and against it, but oh well. I'm actually going to suggest removing the SC 1000 for the SC 500 (2200 lb bomb for 1100) - don't know if that'll reduce damage by 75%, 50% or what with how weird Wargaming can be, but whatever. However - I would like the dispersion of the bombs dialed in a bit more and because the SC 500 actually had a nose designed to be more SAP, increase the pen some. And have it that some of these cruisers will actually when hit amid ships end up taking a citadel hit. Or just make it that the current bombs actually punch through 68 mm then detonate. But I think the other way results in a little less crying from CL players then the current 12k damage bombs scoring a hit, let alone 2 that might well obliterate them. Oh, and seeing as these are Stuka's, can we PLEASE get the 'roll over in to the dive' thing going as the animation, more so if it'll help move the aimpoint where it's easier to see to start the run even a little. Change those two things, and I'm okay with the fact the torpedoes are really kinda bad. But those you at least got name and designations right. Only other thing would be to increase her 'on deck' numbers, I'm going to go with the more conservative 9 (3 per group), bring her total to 36 on deck, 18 ready to go, to give her a little more breathing space vs higher tier opponents, especially in tier 8. I would say 15 (5 per group) as that would give us her planned 42 plane compliment and the 18 planes her cats could launch before recharge, but that would more likely be way too much given the current pitiful state of low tier AA (seriously guys - it needs to be fixed). It's an okay ship, but feels more meme than competitive. Those are the changes I'd make to try and push it a little more toward competitive - and toward being really the first historically accurate CV since the rework happened. Usability of German CV's seriously needs work (again reticle colour on rockets as well as it's behavior on them, placement on DB's) The collection is beyond underwhelming - all that just to get the alt colours and second flags for German ships? Couldn't give us a captain? Some coal? Free xp? something? Research price change of CV's - if you had just left it at changing the tier 4 price, it would have been a win - but you had to add it to the other damn grinds. Could you just bring the odd tiers back so we can stop this nonsense. Should have been made a bit clearer that Lowenhardt for Dubs was in it's own tab, not the general area with the rest (confused the hell out of me when I went to look for it before it was gotten for me) Tomorrow/day after I'll get to the crosshair change on the other CV's.
  5. WanderingGhost

    AP bomber's got nurfed!

    Sounds normal to all DB's for me dating back to RTS. lined up manual drop Saipan DB's right smack middle going along the deck of a IJN CV that was parked - 0 hits, with the only way to miss 9/9 on that reticle to have 9/9 in the 3 pixels left and right of it if that many.
  6. WanderingGhost

    Quicky Loewenhardt Review

    That's because it IS Graf Zeppelin. The tier 8 has the modified Atlantic Bow (that made her slightly longer), a proposed revision around and too the superstructure (the curved funnel cap not present in any existing pictures of GZ was before the final construction halt), the AA/Secondaries are her original 1938 armament (after the mix up that gave it 8x2 15 cm guns instead of 8x1) - before they changed the 2 cm singles to 2 cm flakvierling, and before they changed the bow flakvierling to a twin 10.5 cm gun (after a proposal to remove the 15 cm guns for more 10.5's in sponsons below the flight deck was shelved as they would need to partially deconstruct and rebuild the ship to do so but added that gun) as well as having her second or third proposed air group configuration where the outdated biplanes (that they put at tier 7) were swapped out for modified Stuka's. Not 100% sure but it may also be prior to the bulges that were added for stability (that did increase protection namely vs torpedoes) given they use the estimated speed of 35 knots for what the machinery could do. Haven't seen what the hanger is like, early reports make me afraid, but it sounds like it's either A: based off her Luftwaffe allotment of about 40 planes (hanger space for 2-3 times that), B: her 'prepped planes' (8x 109's ready to go at any given time, no warm up, not sure on Stuka's) or C: the capabilities of her catapult (the intent was to cat launch only unless they had to use rolling take offs). A friend was generous enough to get me one (turns out ended up a little out of my current price range) - it's based on C. 3 groups, 6 planes, 18 aircraft, max it could launch in a row before a 50 minute recharge of the cats. Also need words with Wargaming because 'Sprenggranate' is not 'armour piercing', and they didn't even lazily put an 'AP' on the end of what is translated in English to 'High Explosive' in regards to ordnance and all. If they aren't going to give it HE, or more historically accurate BR 21's/Wfr.Gr 21's - they could at least call them Panzergranate or Pz. Gr which is actually 'Armour piercing' - perhaps at 'Rakete' at the end. Or y'know, and of the other words for rocket/missile in German. Much as this is the first CV in a while where that (and bomb designation) are the only things I have to complain about on a history level while refreshing, is also annoying
  7. WanderingGhost

    What's with the Midways UU?

    9/10 times in-game supersedes patch notes, wiki, etc. Odds are the changes in game were after the notes were written and never communicated to the final draft. That and as is aside from you have to trade something for that Midway has the slowest DB's and TB's pretty sure, so taking away any speed i really an unneeded penalty.
  8. WanderingGhost

    German Aircraft Carriers Review

    Yeah, except the secondary batteries of at least the tier 4 aren't that great, having lost in a battle of secondaries with one of the other nation CV's landing a truly pathetic number of hits. They aren't that much longer range - not enough to truly sell. Fail to point out tat the location of the bomb reticle makes trying to fly where you can both see the aim point to start a run and dodge flak a pain. And might as well say 'the TB' are like every other nations TB's because that's all anyone uses and we don't actually want tech tree CV's to really be unique and different just say they are by changing what type of ordnance they maybe use or how something works'. To say nothing of throwing history, logic, and past game design experience to the wind.
  9. WanderingGhost

    USS Vermont: a HAZARD to NAVIGATION

    Except you guys didn't from any single drawing I can find - the closest being 'Battleship Rhode Island 1944' which has that AA turret there - but is of course the actual Tillman design with 5 guns. Which still doesn't block the bridge. And Tillman's are the only ones I can find with flushdecks and 3 funnels or funnel like structures - to which A: the armaments are then wrong and B: so is the armour comment/concept when they all have better belt armour than Iowa, 4 of them have better belt armour than either South Dakota class (what appears to be the tier 8 in the split and the two as built premiums at 343 mm) and two have sturdier belts than Yamato. But there are no drawings of Tillman, Montana, or any other potential USN BB I can find where that gun on the turret blocks the bridge view almost entirely with the metal encirclement.. So I'd very much like to know A: if it's not a Tillman - what is it and B: to see these drawings, or at least be pointed in the right direction with what it is that I might try and find information on this should any actually exist from historical sources and not sites where people just make up ship concepts kinda like that picture above.
  10. WanderingGhost

    Any one know about the ner Prem German CV?

    That means nothing. As is they use it as a meaningless name for a rocket (when I could easily provide several option in multiple size ranges) and literally all the early tech tree rockets are 'Sprenggranate AP' unless Wargaming means they are 'High Explosive Armour Piercing' At which point they should have actually just abbreviated it Spr.Gr Pz.SprR or 'Sprenggrenate Panzergranaterakete' - that last part being 'Armour-Piercing Explosive Rocket' (or literally 'Armour Explosive Rocket'). Or just called them 'Panzergranate Rakete' but that would have required them to maybe do research, unfair advantage I have of knowing the language a bit and 25+ years of researching this kind of stuff, that especially when it comes to CV's they no longer seem to care to actually do to get even the simplest things like names/designations right.
  11. WanderingGhost

    Any one know about the ner Prem German CV?

    Yeah, went to the Wiki - it's an 'Early design' of Graf Zeppelin, by which they use the estimated speed GZ would have had (35 knots), the same 15 cm armament (even though originally it was supposed to be 8x1 15 cm gun but a mistake led to it being doubled), same 37 mm armament, her original 20 mm armament before A: it was change to 'Flakvierlings' and B: they tabled an idea that would have meant deconstructing part of the ship to remove the 15 cm guns, then add sponsons of 10.5 cm guns just below the flight deck, but chose to swap the bow 20 mm for an additional 10.5 twin mount because of it, and likely gave it a compliment based around what the Luftwaffe was going to give them instead of what it could actually carry - while using the more common planes most players know about being assigned to it that fit at/close to the tier as opposed to her original Biplane TB's some madman put at tier 7 in the tech tree and others while using the name of the third highest German Ace of WWI when naming convention should be like GZ, B - which the going name is usually listed as 'Peter Strasser' (suppose I should be thankful they didn't use it) and the at least surprisingly correctly named Parseval, all of which are named for someone affiliated with Airships. And then gave it HE DB's. Or put another way - they screwed up Graf Zeppelin on 4 different occasions (initial testing, the last minute change before release, the post yanked from sale testing, and the version released in the rework with the wrong aircraft) and they screwed up the tech tree line particularly in planes (and knew they did) so they found almost everything they could and did what they could to find a way because a year later we still have this evens only nonsense to shove GZ down to tier 6 to put the 109E/T model and the Ju-87C's the GZ should have on the ship with a new name and other tweaks so 'new ship' even though it might as well be "Graf Zeppelin 1940/41" or something like that at this rate.
  12. WanderingGhost

    ST 0.9.8, new ships

    Except that it won't and they just removed half of why Belfast was OP in the IFHE change - the tier 7 one can no longer hide in smoke, pop radar, and eat BB's alive, not unless they are tier 7 or lower. Putting it at tier 8 means that it benefits from the buff IFHE got 8+ that now, it'll pen ships in way it couldn't before, and still has the other half of the problem - the smoke/radar/hydro combo. So it doesn't even remove the 'game breaking' factor - it just makes it cost more.
  13. I really like a couple of the camo's - but unless there is an option that isn't RNG bull out of containers -I don't care because I don't have the money for them. Finally saw the email from work that basically amounts to 'odds are your not working this year' cause it's a sports stadium and don't make enough to get anything else so even if I wasn't hesitant to spend money on your game given it's current state and actions of the company over the last 2 years specifically - I couldn't anyway cause what little I make to spend on things no loner exists. Mid-Autumn Festival - Second verse same as the first. Nice to see another cross nation commander. But what's the deal with the Kaga Camo? If it's just a normal camo, why do I care? If it's one that simply recolours the planes like the camo - why do I care. If your going to give me carrier camo's - they need to be like the Halloween ones, where it actually changes what your flying. Because at least in RTS, I actually spent some time looking at my ship to appreciate any kind of cool camo - now all my time is spent looking at planes. Unless it's removed by the fog removing mod in the modstation, at which point it doesn't matter, you just made it that much harder for me to hit a target because it'll blend the colours even more for me unless they are using something like that Mid-Autumn Festival camo. Another change to make the game look pretty I need like a hole in the head because like some of the changes to water and what not with CV reticules and all it makes it harder to freaking play because I can't see were I'm aiming or what I'm aiming at. This is getting freaking stupid, especially cause there seems to be way too much focus on style and not freaking substance aka fixing CV's because despite what the spreadsheet say according to Sub per a year ago the 'good' numbers are false numbers based on two extremes, balancing other ships that need it, giving us ACTUAL good splits - like the USN BB one we've been asking for for years - not the absolute joke and borderline insult you guys tossed up, etc. Doesn't matter what collabs you do, or how pretty you make the game, if no one wants to play or pay because they are getting decimated by CV's, are playing CV's and their planes are decimated by AA, their aim is impeded due to 'pretty graphics changes', poorly balanced ships and ones that have been powercrept over 5 years (many USN BB's) or overnerfed (most of the IJN torpedo DD line), and when we spend literal years asking for something, and giving you guys tons of info, and almost everyone listing the same 7 ships - Deleware, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Dakota, South Dakota 1920, with yeah, maybe a Tillman at the top - decide instead to say what amounts to 'Screw you guys' and A: not give us that split, B: base a 3 tier split off the Tillman's and not bloody follow the concept of the Tillman's, and C: to throw further salt in the wound after releasing 4 premiums at 3 tiers of the 7 most listed in a split, after that announcement of the split you go 'hey guys, were adding at tier 5 Oklahoma, the Nevada Class battleship' - making it now 4/8 tiers of an actual damn split done as premiums. 4/8 from 5-8 and you guys worked on Georgia and Ohio - if you don't want a split starting at 3 or 4 - that's a line split.
  14. WanderingGhost

    Rhein AA

    Taking away CV control opened the door for sniping, so they had to make AA stupid powerful to curtail it, which also means CV vs CV is a boring slug match or who has better secondaries. One of many reasons I detest the rework. really need to buff AA at those tiers for other ships though, ot to that level but more tan what they got now.
×