Jump to content

ryuukei8569

Members
  • Content count

    2,580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7489
  • Clan

    [DRP]

Community Reputation

539 Excellent

About ryuukei8569

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Insignia

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

458 profile views
  1. Submarine Watch - Update

    That may be so, but Subs are just completely unsuited to the type of gameplay currently present in WoWs, which is dynamic fleet action. Bringing subs into the current iteration of the game is like bringing a B-29 bomber into a game that is solely about air to air combat and dog fighting, with no ground targets to hit. Yeah, not particularly useful. Subs would only work in a more scenario oriented game, not the current Random/Ranked/clan wars battles that we currently have. Sub's just don't have the level of mobility needed for a game where the Standard type battleships have a very hard time having influence throughout the game. And they have a far longer effective weapons range than Subs.
  2. Thats not really true. The skill gap with CV's pertains much more with CV vs CV or CV vs DD, not so much CV vs CA/CL/BB. it doesn't take a vast amount of skill for a CV player to effectively strike against a BB, and striking a cruiser just requires learning how to bait AA, and avoiding certain AA monsters. The most important aspects of CV play, is striking DD's and winning the air war against the other CV, as this allows the CV to dominate both spotting and cap control. So in that sense, AA doesn't really affect Unicum CV players, because they never go after the high AA ships at be beginning of the game, as those high AA ships usually aren't important to the early game. AA really only matters to CV skill level in a game where both CV players lack the skill to hit DD's and thus have to go after the BB's. But Good CV players prioritize DD's first, then bother with the BB only in the late game, which by then HE spam has destroyed most of their AA and the cruisers are either dead or scattered, or similarly rendered AA impotent due to HE spam. And i wopuld say that these days, with HE spam begin at such a ridiculous overabundance (thank you British BB's), AA may even be on the weak side.
  3. USN BB line boredom?

    Even with CV's that niche is not very useful, as the downright excessive amounts of HE spam these days quickly destroys all AA.
  4. The big problem with continuing the game past T10, whether using all gunships or going into missile ship designs, is just the plain lack of designs to use. Consider just how many high tier battleships and cruisers are fantasy designs, basically every T11 Battleship or cruiser would have to use a fantasy Wargaming invention. Even the Iowa modernization wouldn't work at T11, as those are 1980's era modernization's and even with them, a 1980's era Iowa would still get creamed pretty good by Montana's Yamato's or GK's. As for Cruiser lines, only two nations can field semi plausible T11 cruisers without fantasy inventions and that is US and USSR. Literally every other nations T11 cruiser would have to be made up. Same deal with aircraft carriers. The only Real T11 candidate is the Forrestal's. Only Dd lines can plausibly continue into T11 for most nations, and it would still be a stretch. After WW2, except for the USN and VMF, big navies kinda stopped being a thing as nuclear weapons took over the primary strategic deterrence role. Not to mention if missiles where introduced into the game, they would make life hell for the DD's, but would be nearly worthless against a battleship or heavily armored cruiser, as many of those early missiles, or even most AShM's in general, simply weren't designed to penetrate heavy armor. Something like a BBG would be one of the most OP things in the game against anything that isn't another BB or a stupidly heavily armored cruiser, as you would now give the BB a much better ability to snipe spotted CV's or wipe out a DD.
  5. I think in general the USN CA's will all see an improvement stat wise. As for the CL's. At first I can see most of them having balancing issues, with most being on the weak side, but the best thing about the split, is now both the CA's and the CL's will have a better margin for growth for future buffs. Especially with the CA's being downtiered, if future buffs are needed for some of them, wargaming doesn't have to go too much into fantasy La La land to do it. Plus USN CA's also get to reclaim some of their AA reputation back. This is especially true at T8 and 9, where the T8 New Orleans and T9 Baltimore really couldnt be buffed anymore without going into magical fantasy territory. AA was a particular sticking point for New Orleans as her AA was just terrible, and there really was no buffing it. But the T8 Baltimore and T9 buffalo have much better room for future buffs if they ever need it. If Baltimore still under performs at t8, well its an easy fix, restore her heal. If Buffalo under performs, its also an easy fix, buff her RoF.
  6. When aluminum beats steel....

    there are cruisers with AA at T4?
  7. We really don't need yet another cruiser line that encourages mindless HE spam of battleships. Besides nothing encourages a battleship to want to blap a cruiser more than constant annoying HE Spam. And encouraging players to HE spam battleships in a game where HE spam has already reached critical mass (thank you RN BB's), really isn't going to be making the cruiser line more healthy. What cruisers, (especially USN Cruisers need, is durability. USN Cruisers during WW2 often proved to be insanely durable, noting the number of US cruisers that could lose their entire bows and still get home. So th best representation of USN Cruiser durability ingame, should come from hull heals. T9 and 10 cruisers ought to get 3 hull heals, as well as 32 mm upper belts for the heavies. (with that DM chan have her Reload return to the 6 second reload). T8 cruisers ought to get 2 hull heals, while he T7's get either one or two, and the T6's get one. That's really what needs to be done with them, not more mindless HE spam which has already overloaded the game (looking at you RN BB's).
  8. Graf Zeppelin, Why is she tier 8?

    No it wasn't. Graf Zeppelin has oodles of hangar space, 5,450 square meters. For reference, Lexington only has a mere 3,114 square meters. So in terms of actual usable hangar space, GZ is considerably better than most of her tiermates. The only reason GZ wast issues over a hundred something planes, is that the german planes didn't have folding wings, which limited how many that they could have put on board, plus they weren't using deck parks at the time. If GZ was given american planes, and deck parks, she could have been easily given over a hundred aircraft. In fact this kind of fudging the numbers has happened quite frequently with both CV lines. Ranger, Essex, and Lexington in game have fewer aircraft than they could carry in real life, while Hosho, Hiryu, independence, and Taiho have more aircraft than they carried normally. In fact, your argument is compeltely stupid, because carrier airwings frequently don't remain the same throughout their service years. An aircraft complement isn't like a battleship guns, where a battleship generally is stuck with the same guns it has over its service life. Carrier airwings are very fluid and can be adjusted with little real difficulty.
  9. Spill it...your most played ships

    BB - Tirpitz, Montana, Missouri CV - Essex, Hiryu, Saipan Cruisers - Atago, Des moines, Moskva DD - Shimakaze, Khabarovsk, Udaloi I'm as bit surprised by some of these. I haven't played atago hardly at all over the past year,and not a whole lot out of shima either. Udaloi only has so any games because i had to grind it twice, once to get khab, the other to get Grozovoi. Of course Missouri has become my go to credit grinder.
  10. I haven't noticed USN DD tubes as being more fragile than anyone else, however ever since British BB HE spam was introduced, i find that torpedo tube total destruction has gone up quite substantially.
  11. ST Seattle initial stats

    There would literally be no difference between Fargo/Cleveland and Baltimore/Oregon city from a gameplay standpoint. So the only way to put them in at different tiers is to give them very Ahistoical stats, but then you have basically repeats leading to very stale gameplay. You want to be an utter purist in regards to what ships are put into the game and yet are perfectly willing to give them complete ahistorical makeovers in order to fit, despite the fact that when wargaming has attempted to do this, it results in mediocre ships. Its one of the major reasons why the IJN DD line is such a disaster, because shoving a bunch of repeat designs in at different tiers doesn't work that well. So hypocrisy much. Quit being such a purist, you don't like the paper ships, then don't keep them.
  12. ST Seattle initial stats

    No, you couldnt make the T9 US CA real without having a massive power gap in between the T9 and 10. DM is just way way to far ahead of any other USN CA in terms of firepower, and the only way to give existing USN CA's enough firepower to be a worthy T9 is to give them very very fake reload times. As for the CL's, either the T9 or the T10 was going to have to be paper. Worchester under her historical stats is really only a T9 ship at best with T10 AA, and the only US cruiser that even comes close to being T9 worthy is the 1939 st Louis with historical reload of 6-7 seconds.
  13. They will be drowned out by all the DD mains complaining about the radar, and the occasional CV main whining about the AA. (british BB's are better HE spammers anyway)
  14. I'm not referring to what the US navy would have done, I am talking about what wargaming is likely to do. Yeah I get it, the US navy wouldn't have likely used the 18"/47 operationally if they had actually built an 18 inch gunned battleship. But wargaming on the other hand, is likely to go for their typical frankenship designs that incorporates a random mix from a dozen different design studies and blueprints, and likely including using the 18 inch 47 firing SHS. This is wargaming we are talking about after all.
×