Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

200 Valued poster

About dagger1013

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,023 profile views
  1. Do I have any superships right now? No, I am incredibly broke. Do I plan on getting any? Yes. Condé looks so much better than Henri and performance wise looks absolutely cracked. Patrie also looks cracked, my secondary spec French BB captain will finally have a serious home. I'm beginning to agree with Yuro on this one, French bias > Russian bias. I'd also like to pick up the US but I don't relish having to potentially play against CV unicums so that's staying on my backburner.
  2. Not gonna lie, while I liked your other proposals, not a fan of this one. If AA values were standardized, to DD values, then BBs just get to become AA powerhouses through sheer volume of the mounts they have, as of BBs needed more help. If AA was standardized to BB values then cruiser AA will be overall weaker than they are now since they have fewer mounts, as if cruisers needed to suffer more. Not to mention DDs will just get sodomized even harder when they have maybe 3 or 4 AA mounts.
  3. Do people not understand that San Diego is not a T8 Austin anymore? They see MBRB and SAP and think "oh, must be an Austin-lite." NO! Austin has insane DPM with MBRB and awful DPM without. San Diego already has among the highest DPMs of cruisers at her tier WITHOUT MBRB, and does not spike as hard WITH MBRB since it's a standard -50% instead of Austin's -75%. Anyways, I am cautiously optimistic about this iteration of San Diego. Still not a fan of the AP, it renders San Diego basically useless against angled targets because she gets DD SAP angles instead of the better angles on the Italian CAs and BBs. If they were concerned about San Diego setting too many fires, they could have just reverted the SAP damage nerf, nerfed her reload a bit, to achieve the same SAP DPM as she has now with lower HE DPM and FPM. It would still be significantly more usable than her ammo choices now.
  4. dagger1013

    Yamato secondary build: Change my mind

    Yamato is slow, her turrets turn slow, and her armor scheme is very much not built for brawling. To make things worse she is also spotted from the moon, and her secondaries are short ranged. Probably the only worse choices to do a secondary build on would be Vermont and the UK BBs.
  5. No, I think you're just underestimating quite how garbage the US was.
  6. Effective armor. The shells are hitting superstructure geometry in a way where the absolute path through the armor is equivalent to the fuse threshold of the shells. Normally shells striking at an angle where the effective thickness of a 16mm plate becomes 77 would ricochet, but the shells just overmatch it and ignore the ricochet check.
  7. dagger1013

    Changes to San Diego (2022.03.31) - She Still Sucks

    Atlanta's AP is 0.5kg heavier than her HE, so I assume they duplicated the shell mass for San Diego's SAP. If we then decrease drag to 0.27, we get this shell flight time vs range. Sejong and Jinan make for good comparisons here. Personally, I'm grinding through the Pan-Asian cruiser line and I feel the ballistics will give a lot more than 1km of effective range based on my experience going from Chumphon to Harbin then Sejong. Surveillance radar yes, but I don't think smoke is a good idea. We've seen that smoke cruisers generally give up a lot of offensive power for smoke especially if also have HE. See Anchorage, Belfast 43, and the new Pan-Asian cruisers. I don't think this is a fair comparison. In your own IFHE post, you generally reccomended IFHE for 152mm armed cruisers, valuing direct damage over relying on DoTs. The 127s don't cross many breakpoints at T8 and above, so most builds won't include IFHE so a more fair comparison should be San Diego's 8.4 to 10.5 vs 5.4 and 6.65. Smolensk has similar fires per minute, at T10 where ships have higher fire resistance and it's generally considered to be incredibly annoying to play against. I think in general you're undervaluing the MBRB and I disagree with how you integrate it into your DPM calculations, but this point is fair. I think San Diego with a further buffed reload and without MBRB would still be compelling for me. I also think you're heavily undervaluing SAP. Even if her SAP angles (identical to Austin and F. Sherman) are not as good as the Italian CAs, it is still superior to US CA angles, and even the AP only RN CLs. From your own calculations, we can see that San Diego is already outDPMing Atlanta, all while being able to deal direct damage to enemy cruisers, BB extremities, and the entire hulls of some BBs, where Atlanta would have to run IFHE and even still be screwed against higher tier ships, all while having greater effective range. It has among the highest (if not the highest, haven't checked them all) DPM of the T8 CLs right now while being able to innately pen 32. I do agree that SAP overlaps with AP, so personally I'd like to see a return to SAP + HE. But at this point, it's not really an Austin. Unless you're defining an Austin-like ship as having SAP and a reload booster. To me, Austin is a ship that revolves heavily around sneaking around and finding a good opportunity to use MBRB. It is devastating with MBRB up, but not very strong with it down. San Diego in its current state is much more reminiscent of the French cruisers. DPM is perfectly acceptable even without MBRB and MBRB is a means to allow them to heavily punish enemy mistakes. Otherwise I agree with you wrt the heal power budget, AA, radar.
  8. Sorry if my tone came out wrong, meant to imply that I really like your suggestion because it takes skill, as opposed to the vast majority of AA balancing suggestions I see where people essentially want every single ship to have enough continuous AA so that no CV attack gets through, all while potentially providing zero warning about the AA power.
  9. Wow what is this, a suggestion that doesn't just ask for every single ship to pump out enough undodgeable continuous AA damage to wipe entire squads before they get their drops off?
  10. dagger1013

    San Diego's Initial Stats are a Flaming Turd

    1. Language cannot be misused, language, by definition, is exactly what people use. 2. Even if you want to go by dictionaries as arbiters of what proper use of a word is, "literally" as an intensifier appears as a perfectly valid definition of the word. 3. Neither statement was an exaggeration made in order to intensify a statement. They were facts. 60 / (8.5 * 0.25) * 14 * 2700 is in fact 1067294.11765. Over a million. Austin is in fact a ship that exists in the game, that is playable, and that has low base DPM that gets massive burst with a reload booster active, while happening to have an exceptionally squishy hull.
  11. dagger1013

    San Diego's Initial Stats are a Flaming Turd

    And how exactly is San Diego being disrespected?
  12. dagger1013

    San Diego's Initial Stats are a Flaming Turd

    Okay and? It's the matter of how the math is done. Just calculating the DPM is fine without the reload booster, but LWM treats the reload boost as a means to pad DPM as if someone is holding down LMB constantly, and using MBRB off CD. Like yeah, wow, even with MBRB the average DPM over 60s doesn't look impressive, but no one actually uses MBRB that way. You use MBRB to ideally end the fight in the duration that the MBRB is active. You can go ahead and say that you don't like San Diego's concept, but that doesn't mean "San Diego's Initial Stats are a Flaming Turd." They're close to fine for what they do, you just don't like what they're meant to do.
  13. dagger1013

    San Diego's Initial Stats are a Flaming Turd

    For the first time in a while, I have to disagree with one of your takes. First of all, I've never agreed with your DPM calculations. No one in ships with reload booster is using it off CD to prop up their DPM. They either use it to burst down a target, or to punish a mistake, such as giving too much side or prematurely using DCP. You keep trying to compare San Diego to Atlanta, but San Diego isn't trying to be an uptiered Atlanta, it's trying to be a downtiered Austin. An Austin isn't a Smolensk, or Colbert. It doesn't rain down a stream of shells to farm damage. It's an ambush predator, preying on cruisers and DDs. It's less of a cruiser and more of a fat French DD. San Diego is much the same. It's not meant to be a DPS machine, it's meant to catch some poor cruiser or DD and dump 15 seconds worth of literally over 1 million DPM into them. San Diego already has more theoretical base DPM than Austin, and she's two tiers lower, and can see tier 8s! Honestly, the only San Diego would need to be good is to actually end up with the special Austin reload boost some marginally buffed ballistics. Or, if they stick with the standard 50% reload boost, a reload buff to around 5.5-6 seconds. You say the base premise is terribly flawed, but we literally have her template in game already at arguably a rougher tier and it does fine.
  14. dagger1013

    I have to grind Pruisen? Really?

    Okay and? Why do you even care? You clearly don't like GK, and you clearly aren't interested in Preussen, so why the hell do you even care about the progress of the line if you don't like the line anyways?
  15. dagger1013

    New French Battlecruisers inbound

    @Boggzy Can you confirm what the dispersion on these new ships are supposed to be? Devblog shows them having BC dispersion but with worse sigma, but I've been told that they were said to have normal cruiser accuracy on the stream.