Jump to content

Carrier_Lexington

Members
  • Content count

    3,772
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4216
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

834 Excellent

About Carrier_Lexington

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Birthday 09/27/1998
  • Insignia
    [HINON]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Spying from an air duct in the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    Space, Russian Destroyers, American CVs, anime, being a nice person

Recent Profile Visitors

2,140 profile views
  1. Premium Ship Preview: Alaska

    Actually, I think I mixed-up my tanks. The Centurion (final modification) had a 105mm.
  2. WG is jumping the shark by adding submarines

    1 million? Scharnhorst alone cost 143.5 Million RM to build, or 351.58 Million USD (based on the 1935 figure of 2.45 USD to 1 RM). I mean, if we're all about being Realistic here...
  3. WG is jumping the shark by adding submarines

    See, I think this should be a thing, but for all ships. Kinda like a WoWS version of Heliborne Frontlines or Tannenberg.
  4. WG is jumping the shark by adding submarines

    I see a lot of projection or historical debate in this thread, and I just want to take a moment to remind everyone of two things: Submarines have not been designed for PvP yet. If most players really hate subs as much as some people think they will, it won't happen, and if most really love subs the way some people think they will, then it's a shoe-in. Either way, no need to start being vicious towards each other. WoWS is in no way a fleet combat simulator. In fact, as far as simulations go, WoWS is extremely arcadey. Therefore, historical comments or debates about whether subs took-part in fleet actions are pointless, because WoWS does not simulate fleet combat. It's a TPS with an arcade level of simulation. Saying WoWS is a Fleet Action Simulator would be like saying Call of Duty is an accurate depiction of warfare. It isn't.
  5. SUBMARINES!

    I know it was meant to be a joke. My tone of mock-terror doesn't carry well through the internet.
  6. SUBMARINES!

    You do realize that, like the torpedo of the same principle, they scrubbed that because ships found it difficult to escape the blast radius? You'd be pretty-much guaranteed Pink every game, simply by damage dealt to self.
  7. Premium Ship Preview: Alaska

    I was mainly speaking as to a by-product of the added forward momentum making it difficult to change the velocity (speed + direction) of the shell.
  8. SUBMARINES!

    Though it should be noted that WoWS tends to use best-possible speeds... mileage may vary.
  9. SUBMARINES!

    I wonder if they plan on adding Squid and Hedgehog mortars, possibly as side-grades that sacrifice a gun turret on some ships.
  10. SUBMARINES!

    Ahh, thank you for the clarification.
  11. SUBMARINES!

    Perhaps as a line-split at higher tiers.... Also, you're forgetting the Type XXI, capable of 27 knots underwater (Yamato-speed).
  12. SUBMARINES!

    No, Mike means underwater rendering. Currently, everything is rendered on the surface level. Of course, with the coming CV changes, a third dimension (Up-Down) has been added, meaning that it is thereby no longer impossible to add submarines.
  13. Premium Ship Preview: Alaska

    Ahh, correct. I'm sorry, I mixed-up my guns. Thank you, I have removed that example.
  14. Premium Ship Preview: Alaska

    Show me this "scientific definition." It's not science at all, it's purely politics and posturing. Also, if I may remark, the definition of what is a "capital ship" is not up for debate here, rather, it's those pesky terms, "Battleship caliber guns," and "Battlecruiser." As @mofton said, purely tautological and opinionated. If we are talking about science, let me inform you that science is based on empirical data. There is no empirical data for why a ship is called something; and no data suggests that what a ship is called influences its capabilities. Therefore, ship name definitions are most assuredly NOT scientific. They are based on politics, doctrines, and publicity (in the form of posturing), NOT data. Furthermore, the architects do not decide what a ship is classified as, that is purely a political matter, and for that I have an example: The US Ticonderoga-class Guided Missile Cruiser was actually first presented to Congress as the US Ticonderoga-class Guided Missile Destroyer. But Congress refused to give them priority or major funding, citing that the Navy had too many destroyers and needed to spend its money on more cruisers. The architects took the plans back, modified them slightly, and then argued that the presence of the AEGIS system, the AN/SPY-1 Radar system, and the "ability to operate as a flagship" (all of which were present in the original design) justified that the ship could be classified Guided Missile Cruiser instead of Guided Missile Destroyer, and they were and they got more funding. That is why the US Ticonderoga-class Cruisers are smaller than the Zummwalt Guided Missile Destroyers, and almost identical in size to the Arleigh Burkes (longer, but thinner). As you can see, the motivation here was not scientific, it was all about securing funding; purely political, in other words. Logically speaking, your arguments just fall apart. They are both naturalistic and rely on the "Expert Fallacy," namely, you give credence to what one group of people calls the ship without examining their credentials, biases, motivations, et cetera. I want to point-out that the Russians made an effective Medium Tank with a light-tank or armored-car gun: namely, the T-34-57. How? Barrel lengths. Let me take that one step further and say that the Germans made a solid set of medium tanks (Pathers) when the armament was a 75mm gun.... when pretty-much everyone else was using 90mm or higher caliber. How? Barrel length again. See, barrel length increases shell accuracy, speed, and penetration at all distances because it allows the shell to accumulate more velocity and therefore more forward momentum because the expanding gasses in the barrel continue to act upon it. This was the principle behind Scharnhorst's guns, and this is why Alaska's guns were much more powerful than Iowa's despite being the same caliber and weight (SHS). I would read through the rest of your little filibuster, but most of it is a shotgun-argument built around the same fallacy that drives your first claim. Also, a word on the subject of argumentation: Drowning someone in millions of one-liners is not a valid argumentational strategy. It leaves your thesis ununified and shows that you have no real conclusion for your position nor premise to support it, you're just interested in being pedantic and contrarian. It's also just annoying and does not make people want to read it.
×