Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

1,192 Superb

About Kirov_Six

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,686 profile views
  1. Have right at it. No one's stopping you. Or you can wait patiently for someone else to do it if you can't be arsed to get the answers yourself.
  2. Kirov_Six

    What a difference a new compu makes.

    There's always some guy out there saying that you don't need an i7, it's not worth the money, etc. As you say, build what you can, it'll grow into it. It's my money to spend anyway.
  3. Kirov_Six

    What a difference a new compu makes.

    I had a 2012 6-core i-series Xeon, 16G RAM, 4 2012-era 640GB hard drives, and just an old 750ti GPU. Got a new 6-core i7-8700 3.2GHz CPU, 5 GB GTX 1070, 32GB RAM, with a 256 GB SSD, and a 2 TB HD for other storage. Before someone asks, yes, the i7 is not overkill for me. I run VMs for dev/testing when I'm not gaming on it. It just works really nice for gaming, too.
  4. Yes. I figured the description with the shell-cam would be decipherable by people who have seen it...
  5. What this game needs is the 'shell-cam' like that other game has. Then you could at least see what happened in the magazine to cause the detonation. You see some really weird stuff happen with physics/ballistics/shells in that game. All of it is plausible, but some really weird crap happens. I got shot out of the air one day by a tank shell richocheting off another tank's mantlet, and flying upward into my plane, hitting the right wing spar. No wing after that. I mean, I'm not saying it was a bad thing. Random events happen in combat, and this was a perfect example. However, instead of my wing disappearing, and I had no idea why, I got the camera that showed me what happened, and then I had a good laugh!
  6. Kirov_Six

    AP Bombs OP?

    I've had better luck with GZ side-citadel-ing cruisers...
  7. Wow, dredge up that. Whatever. Your original post in this thread is directly above mine. Anyone can read the whole thing if they wish. That was when I quoted you across two threads. This time I quoted you in-line in the same thread. Does not apply. Also, speaking of reading comprehension, why did you reply to my reply to someone else?
  8. I prefer not to post PMs verbatim, but I also find it disingenuous to conclude that I didn't read what you wrote. I read what you wrote. Do I agree with what you wrote? No. I didn't. You evidently took that as my inability to understand. I understood perfectly, but I didn't agree with your conclusions. You are perfectly fine to think what you like, but, let's not try to turn into disagreement into stupidity.
  9. This is exactly what I meant. You don't want CVs attacking ships, and you are so focused on that. I don't see that as a viable alternative. Yes, I read your entire paragraph above, but that's the meat of it there. You don't want CVs attacking your ships. I get it. You want CVs in another mode, or doing something other than attacking surface ships. I disagree. It has nothing to do with reading comprehension.
  10. Ruar, *every* plan I have read from you to 'balance' carriers involves shunting them into a role where they can't damage surface ships, or putting them in a mode where, again, they can't damage other surface ships. I see that as just another disguised effort to remove CVs or nerf them into uselessness. You don't see it that way. I can read just fine. I just don't draw the same conclusions from it that you do.\ If you see that as a lack of reading comprehension, you go right ahead.
  11. Nice misrepresentation by two people in this thread. Nice. Standard Anti-CV crap. I didn't say what they wanted to hear, so they acted like I couldn't read what they said. Have a nice day.
  12. I've had pretty good luck lately if I'm careful not to turn past about 100 degrees on a turn.
  13. I just don't like to directly quote PM threads. Alluding to them is one thing, directly quoting is another. YMMV. Doesn't matter what people think I have or not, anyway. I could have the smoking gun to something earthshaking, and people here would ignore it if they didn't like what it said.
  14. Unlike you, I won't quote directly from the thread. There's another mention of 92% vs 8% that you didn't post for some reason. You cherry-picked your context to quote me pretty carefully there. I'll leave it at that.
  15. Just over a month ago, you said that it was 8% CV vs 92% not CV, and the 92% would win. You're posting that it's changing more in your favor. So, yes, you're talking about current game.