Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

26 Neutral

About roofvalk

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Birthday 11/13/1997
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Durango, México

Recent Profile Visitors

1,016 profile views
  1. low popularity is kind of understandable, but WG deciding to remove them from the game didn't make them more attractive. increasing single tier battles would be an option, but the problem of long wait times remain. subs are in a similar state right now, if they prove not to performe well in random battles, a unique battle type will be created for them and we will have to grind them anyway. Escorts could be similar, participating in that unique battle type, bringing them some special features.
  2. WG announced the reintroduction of odd-tier aircraft carriers in the future but if the gameplay will be exactly the same, what is the point of having more branches? Let me investigate and I'll add them to the proposal.
  3. Because Implacable is already in game. Design form 1936 Displacement: 10000 t standard; 13150 full load Dimensions: 215m x 24m x 5.88m Machinery: 126 500 shp=33 kts Armament: 8x1 100mm, 4x4 37mm, 20x1 12.7mm 30 airplanes
  4. The WG experiment with aircraft carriers and anti-aircraft defenses has started more than a year ago, and although adjustments and balances are still being made in this regard, the truth is that the vast majority of the community is dissatisfied with the results. Some of the problems that can be observed right now are the following: Tier 3 and 4 ships defending against air attacks without even possessing anti-aircraft defenses. Aircraft carriers facing ships of 2 tiers lower or higher due to the matchmaking system, causing extremely unbalanced situations for some of the parties. Let's take any tier 8 CV as an example; in the first game he could face a division of Hallands and in the second game a poor Icarus. For these problems, mainly, I propose the following changes to the current aircraft carrier system: Tier 5 as the first tier in which aircraft carriers develop in the Tech Tree. As a consequence Hosho, Langley, Hermes and Rhein will level up and there will be no more Tier 4 aircraft carriers in the game. The return of the old odd-tiered aircraft carriers to provide a continuous carrier line from tier 5 to tier 10. The differentiation between fleet aircraft carriers, light aircraft carriers and escort aircraft carriers. Not necessarily creating new classes in-game, but only including more aircraft carrier lines with varied characteristics, such as light and heavy cruisers. Fleet aircraft carriers are large ships with a huge hangar capacity (examples; Essex, Taiho, Audacious, Graf Zeppelin, etc.). Within the game its gameplay would continue in the current way, with 3 types of attack squadrons; rockets, TB and DB. Light aircraft carriers are small to medium-sized ships, with little armor and reduced hangar capacity (examples; Independence, Ryujo, Hermes, etc.). In-game they would be aircraft carriers with concealment capabilities comparable to those of a light cruiser in most cases. Due to their poor hangar capacity, their squad options would be reduced to 2; rockets and TB or DB, depending on the gimmicks. Escort aircraft carriers are slow and variable size ships, resulting from the conversion of other ships into aircraft carriers, which have a small hangar capacity (examples; Bogue, Shimane Maru, Nairania, etc.). These ships like the previous ones would only possess two types of squadrons, rockets and TB/DB, but unlike the previous ones they could NOT be used in random battles due to their, possibly, poor performance, instead they would be ideal ships for Operations in which they could participate submarines and destroyers. In the new aircraft carrier system the MM would be limited to ± 1 tier difference just for CVs, avoiding situations in which one side has too much advantage or disadvantage. This is how the new tech trees would look like: Due to their year of design/laid down and the fact that in most games the aircraft carrier itself doesn't engage in direct combat (laughs on Graf), some ships take place at higher or lower levels than might be expected. USA: Japan: UK: Germany: France: Italy: Soviet Union: Spain: Some lines have holes and some others do not reach tier 10, but it is not necessary that they all go to the maximum level, thus avoiding the non-historical designs and anyway undeniably increasing the variety of playable ships.
  5. yo lo colocaría más como un T9 que como un T8, pero buen post :)
  6. roofvalk

    Crucero de Batalla 37000

    Con la tendencia que tiene WG de agregar supercruceros tal vez podamos ver el primer diseño como un tier 10 premium xD
  7. you are right in that sense, and that's why now each AA mid-, and long-range mount can generate an explosion, of much more damage than the current ones and with quite good rate of fire for the AA defenses of mid range
  8. not necessarily rely on missplaying CV, but with the change, AA defenses can provide effective and more secure coverage even if you are alone
  9. As WG has decided to maintain the change in the gameplay of the aircraft carriers, I consider it's necessary to also make a change in terms of the antiaircraft defenses of the ships (a better planned change than what they have already done). This concept that I present is focused on the unification of the damage that the AA armaments do, that is, that the same type of weapon does the same damage in any tier and ship in which it is mounted. Some of the considerations I took for this proposal are the following: The elimination of the function of the "O" key. Personally I can not imagine the ship's crew running from one side to the other every time the AA defenses are reinforced on one side or the other. Also, personally, I consider that it is a function that does not really help during the game since a squadron of planes can quickly be placed on the other side of the ship. The elimination of continuous damage. It is ridiculous to think that by entering within the range of AA defenses an aircraft will receive damage automatically, it is as if Shimakaze received damage just by entering Yamato's firing range, it just does not make sense. AA defenses must have a well defined recharge time. Like any other type of weapon, whether large or small, AA defenses must have a recharge time according to their design and characteristics. Generally, the greater the caliber, the longer the recharge time, and the more modern the weapon, the shorter the recharge time. Damage by explosions of the medium and long range defenses, and the damage per shot of the short range defenses is the same. Regardless of the tier, class of ship, etc., the damage caused by the AA defenses will always be the same as long as it is the same type of weapon. AA defenses must have well-defined firing angles. Like primary armament, AA defenses can not rotate freely if they have an obstacle around them. Each long and medium range AA weapon can generate an explosion. It is a bit strange how WG decides the amount of explosions generated by the long and medium range defenses, but under the premise that I propose we assume that each AA mount can generate an explosion when firing. The probability of impact for AA defenses of short, medium and long range is the same. The probability of impact for AA defenses varies depending on the tier and not on the class of ship. In the current system aircraft carriers and destroyers have an impact probability of 100% in tier 10 while battleships barely reach 75%. In the system that I propose, all Tier 10 ships will have an 80% impact probability by default, and this probability decreases by 2% for each Tier. The implementation of 6 types of AA armament instead of 3. Ships such as Neptune, Richelieu, Republique have two different types of long-range AA weaponry, due to this I consider that the use of 6 different classifications should be implemented if necessary. Light short-range AA defenses (caliber < 20 mm) Heavy short-range AA defenses (20 mm ≤ caliber < 37 mm) Light mid-range AA defenses (37 mm ≤ caliber < 55 mm) Heavy mid-range AA defenses (55 mm ≤ caliber < 88 mm) Light long-range AA defenses (88 mm ≤ caliber < 152 mm) Heavy long-range AA defenses (152 mm ≤ caliber) This change also effect some of the skills of commander and ship modules and cosumables: Skills: Modules: Consumables: In general all ships will suffer a considerable reduction in the efficiency of long-range defenses, but they will receive a very noticeable improvement in the defenses of medium and short range. In most of the ships, the efficiency of medium-range AA defenses will be duplicated.
  10. roofvalk

    Votaciones Parte Final Top 10 Portaaviones 2018

    T10 - Midway T9 - Taiho T8 - Graff Zepelin T7 - Hiryu T6 - Independence T5 - Zuiho
  11. roofvalk

    Nuevos Barcos para U.K Y URSS para este 2019

    En si es lo que se basara, debido a que el calibre mencionado es el mismo que podremos escoger entre el 406 y 457 Me refiero a esto: El proyecto 24 tiene la superestructura cuadrada y es similar a Stalingrad, además no tiene catapulta
  12. roofvalk

    Nuevos Barcos para U.K Y URSS para este 2019

    El proyecto 24 no ese que se muestra en el diagrama blanco y negro, el proyecto 24 es bastante similar en apariencia a Stalingrad
  13. roofvalk

    Votaciones Parte 2 Top 10 Cruceros 2018

    T10 - Hindenburg T9 - Dmitry Donskoi T8 - Charles Martel T7 - Fiji T6 - Pensacola T5 - Furutaka
  14. roofvalk

    Votaciones Top 10 Destructores 2018

    T10 - Gearing T9 - Jutland T8 - Z-23 T7 - Shiratsuyu T6 - Gnevny