Jump to content

Retnav54

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    1,095
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8649
  • Clan

    [SFBBW]

Community Reputation

370 Excellent

1 Follower

About Retnav54

  • Rank
    Ensign
  • Birthday 11/30/1958
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Mooresville, NC, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

423 profile views
  1. Retnav54

    Thoughts on Georgia in Co-op?

    The Fitting Tool website actually has the latest specs for the Georgia listed - they have a new category under each nation labeled "Test Ships". With Plotting Room Mod 2 installed in Slot 6, and EM on the captain, you have a 26 second reload, turret traverse of 38 seconds (45 base), Sigma of 1.8, and max dispersion at 20.04 km of 194 meters. Base dispersion without the Plotting Room mod is 216 meters. By way of comparison, other 2nd Gen USN BB's (NC, Alabama, Iowa) have roughly 270 meters of dispersion base value at roughly the same range. Holy hell...... If you instead put Main Battery Mod 3 in Slot 6, along with EM, you end up with a turret traverse of 44 seconds, base dispersion of 216 meters at max range,............ and a 22.9 second reload...... on a set of 18 inch guns......... Slot 2 has Engine Room Mod 1 available, to make engine boost last for 270 seconds. And comparing between Massachusetts and Georgia, at least for the specs that Fitting Tool lists, the secondarys are an exact match - the difference being on Georgia you can fit Secondary Battery Mod 2 in Slot 6 and knock the reload down to a minimum of 2.88 seconds
  2. Retnav54

    A 40 Knot Iowa?

    The one bias I'd accuse WG of without hesitation, is coming up with some rather ridiculous gimmicks, ships, and ideas, all in the search for more money. And yes, I'd classify a 40 knot Iowa with Engine Boost to be a ridiculous gimmick. IMO the further away from reality they get, the harder it is to enjoy the game. Note my comments regarding "Navyfield". I checked out that game back around 2010. May as well have been the naval version of World of Warcraft. You could upgrade ships to ridiculous levels of armor, armament, and speed - like a Montana with 20 inch guns and 60 knots top speed. And it was completely P2W from what I saw of it.
  3. Retnav54

    A 40 Knot Iowa?

    As far as the speeds attained by the New Jersey in 1968, and the other Iowa's in the 80's, we also don't know what if any upgrades they may have done to the propulsion plant, or in other areas, that may have affected speed or efficiency. Only thing I know for certain, is that when they were brought back in the 80's, they were converted from the old "black oil" fuel, to standard Navy Distillate fuel. They probably were at a considerably lighter displacement in either case. The removal of all the WWII era small caliber AA guns and their ammo and associated gear, the removal of all the catapult aircraft and their associated equipment, the removal of four of the 5 inch turrets in the 80's and their associated equipment and ammo, and whatever other equipment that was deemed obsolete or unneeded in their final incarnation - that overall probably noticeably reduced their displacement.
  4. Retnav54

    A 40 Knot Iowa?

    Speak of the devil. My late uncle, who retired in 1971 as a Senior Chief Gunners Mate Technician, was on the commissioning crew of the USS Camden. Same class, she also received half of the powerplant from either the Kentucky or Illinois.
  5. Retnav54

    Thoughts on Georgia in Co-op?

    The other wording in that dev blog post all but said they're trying to turn it into a brawler AKA Massachusetts. They reduced the max gun range to just under 20 km, in concert with the buffs to reload and the secondarys. They fessed up that a ship with only 6 guns wouldn't make a good long range sniper, and that even with semi-cruiser dispersion they weren't seeing the results they wanted at long ranges - so they're concentrating on making it a medium to close range ship. The Massachusetts doesn't have any problems hanging with Tier 10's - I've said on more than one occasion it's a Tier 10 in sheep's clothing - if the Georgia ends up being enough like the Massachusetts, specifically the secondarys and the heal, then it'll be worth getting. To me, the Engine Boost will be a "Get the Hell Out of Dodge" card. 33 knots is more than fast enough to get yourself into trouble, 40 knots with Engine Boost will be for tactical retreats when things go south, or for screaming down an unguarded flank and taking all the caps, or scaring the hell out of carriers. It put an evil grin on my face, when I realized this is a BB that can outrun Midway torps....
  6. Retnav54

    Thoughts on Georgia in Co-op?

    Given the latest announced changes to Georgia, depending on what they want for her, I'm now wondering if it might be worth considering getting her after all. I initially outright dismissed her for the most obvious reason - only 6 guns - but the latest changes might make her at least interesting and something with a unique enough playstyle, to be worth dabbling with. Basically, the changes boil down to - reduced reload time, Graf Spee-type dispersion, Massachusetts-like secondarys with 7.5 km base range and 4 second reload, Massachusetts-like heal with a 60/40 cooldown, and a 15% engine boost consumable. That 15% engine boost caught my eye. Engine boost on a USN BB? And 15% at that. 33 knot base speed, with a 15% engine boost, and a 5% speed flag, the math works out to 39.84 knots. A 40 knot Iowa, with 18 inch guns with 26 second reload and near-cruiser dispersion, and Massachusetts-like secondarys and heal. Okay, you've piqued my interest, this just moved from "no way" to "possibly". Given that it's a Tier 9, my feeling is it'll be a fxp or coal ship. And given it'll be a premium, it won't be that painful playing it in co-op. Any thoughts or impressions?
  7. Retnav54

    A 40 Knot Iowa?

    Indeed. With a fictional interwar refit, I'd say the 1920 SoDaks would fit in well at Tier 7, given at that Tier we already have the Colorado, Nelson, KGV, and the soon-to-be Nelski. The Lexingtons, honestly, I haven't the foggiest where they'd fit in well.
  8. Retnav54

    A 40 Knot Iowa?

    I thought of something yesterday - don't the USN and RN carriers have 35 knot torpedoes on their torp bombers? You mean we've now got a BB that can outrun Midway and Audacious torps? Now that I've seen the dev blog on the RU BB changes, Smolensk, Colbert, and Somers, the Georgia is starting to look downright pedestrian by comparison. Makes me wonder just how far down the rabbit hole they're going to go, with paper ships and fantasy stats. Perhaps I was right, and we'll have to start calling this game "Navyfield 3". I am wondering though - Smolensk, 30-something knots, 25 mm armor, gets called a cruiser - Khaba, 40 knots plus, 50 mm plating, gets called a DD........
  9. Retnav54

    A 40 Knot Iowa?

    An old Navy friend that lives down in Texas, was on the recommissioning crews for both the Iowa and Wisconsin back in the 80's. He said that on sea trials in the Gulf of Mexico, the Iowa was able to do 35 knots with ease.
  10. Retnav54

    A 40 Knot Iowa?

    Perusing the Dev Blog on changes to the RU BB's, came across the notes about the changes to the Georgia - Reducing the main gun range, and shifting emphasis to being a medium to close range ship. Okay, I'm down with that. Kicking up secondary range to 7.5 km and reducing reload to 4 seconds, basically giving it Massachusetts secondarys. Now it's getting interesting. Reducing the cooldown on the heal to 60/40, again basically a Massachusetts heal. Yep, you guys are definitely setting it up to be a brawler. Adding in a 15% Engine Boost consumable........ Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ???????? Doing the maths, 15% Engine Boost and a 5% speed flag on top of that, applied to a 33 knot base max speed, works out to 39.84 knots..... A 40 knot Iowa class BB with 18 inch guns and Massachusetts secondarys and heal...... Ummmm, did you guys buy out the rights to Navyfield? Or did they just forget to hide the key to the vodka cabinet again?
  11. Retnav54

    Credit Income Nerf?

    Overall, I think the reason is the same that applies to all WG titles - constantly looking to squeeze just that much more money out of the playerbase, in any roundabout way they can. I remember a quote from one of the devs or mods around 2 years ago, when we still had the original economy - their attitude was that a player should always be starved for credits, such that it was a continual grind to earn enough to progress in a timely fashion - or they could simply swipe the credit card as a time saving convenience. I don't think they have it out for co-op in particular - as from what I've seen this credit nerf is being felt in PvP as well, just not as noticeable due to the difference in reward levels - just that WG decided we've had it too good for too long, and decided to tighten the screws across the board.
  12. Retnav54

    Iowa in PvE...hmmm

    What I've seen with this credit nerf, playing any Tier 8 or above tech tree ship in co-op right now, is rolling the dice as to whether you make some small profit and stay positive, or end up loosing money, depending on how well you do in the match. And that with a premium camo and economic flags. Over the past 2 1/2 months, with all the seemingly contradictory decisions and statements WG has made, I'm literally wondering if they've completely lost the plot and made such a confused mess, that even they no longer know what to do going forward. Like "With the nerf to the Graf Zeppelin, we have finalized balancing for premium CV's, and will be putting them back on sale with 8.2, and will continue balancing and tweaking carriers thru 8.4" Whut?........
  13. Retnav54

    I think I'll End Exeter after Round 2

    Lost count of the number of campaigns and events over the past 3 years I've skipped, for one reason or another. Main overall reason, if I had to give one, is that when I do get the chance to play, I want to do what I enjoy and play the ships I enjoy, and not be dancing to WG's tune grinding out the campaign of the day. Sometimes, my interests align with the campaign, and I'll grind it out - other times, I'll just bloody ignore it. Right now, my interests lie along the line of making sure I have some good firestarting cruisers and torp boat DD's ready to go, when those bloody Russian BB's make their appearance - and I'm normally a BB main..... that should tell you how I feel about Russian BB's so far....
  14. Retnav54

    CV refund period.

    Yes, I do sympathize with those that bought premium carriers, and don't really know which way to jump on this - if they sell them, and WG finally buffs them back to usefulness, they're out more money to buy them back - if they hang onto them, and WG still leaves them in a woeful state down the road, they're stuck with a port queen, and out the dubs they could have gotten from the refund and used for other purposes. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Speaking just for myself, being fed up with all the shenanigans I've seen WG pull over the past 6 years, and in particular over the past 2 1/2 months, I'd be inclined just to take the bloody refund to make sure I at least got something useful out of the whole mess, just to be done with it and skip all the drama. I'm just tired of their mind games and marketing ploys.
  15. Retnav54

    CV refund period.

    Well, in my case, it was an easy decision. I never bought any of the premium carriers back in the day, and only tried the Tier 4 and 5 IJN carriers under the old system. Shortly before the update, I used some fxp to research up thru the Tier 6 carriers on both lines, to give them a fair shake under the rework. Tried the Tier 4's and 6's up thru the 3 hotfixes and 8.1, decided they weren't worth the trouble, didn't feel like waiting another 3 months for 8.4 to see if things improved, so took the money and ran. Might give them another fling after 8.4 if word is they're improved, but if the low and mid tier carriers are in the same sorry state as now, I'm done with them.
×