Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

743 Excellent

About Carrier_Lexington

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/27/1998
  • Insignia

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,754 profile views
  1. CV-specific Terminology: Fighter-Lockup: When two fighter squads engage each-other, they become unable to move or follow other orders excluding strafe-escapes. This is how to counter fighters at Tier IV and V. Fighter Slow: When Fighter aircraft engage a Strike squadron, they slow it down and increase it's dispersion. Fighter-Strafe: A Fighter Strafe is the alternative attack (involves pressing the Alt-key and Clicking the manually-chosen attack-area for Windows and the Cmd Key + LMB for Mac), and is only available at Tier 6 or later. It triples Fighter DPS in the strafe area and prevents those fighters from being locked-up during the strafe. It also prevents those fighters from locking-up or slowing enemy squadrons, uses a large amount of ammunition, and the fighters cannot follow any order or set any attack order until the strafe is complete. Strafe-Escape: Strafe-Escaping is how to escape a Fighter-Lockup. For all carriers except Saipan, one aircraft is sacrificed while the others strafe an area and leave the lock-up, the enemy squads are paralyzed until your squad completes its strafe. Manual-Bombing: The Alternate Attack for strike squadrons. The USN Torpedoes now launch in a straight line, Dive bomber hit circles decrease, and IJN torpedoes converge as they move farther. DPS/Health: Unlike everything else in the game, planes exist in a purely-RNG environment in-terms of AA and "health." DPS is not how much damage is dealt to planes per second, because planes don't have health. Instead, it is part of a fraction used to determine how easy it is to shoot a plane down: Total DPS of Fighters/AA Guns Health of squadron being attacked Fighter-Stacking: Using multiple squads of fighters in one lockup to essentially double the DPS that is being dealt to the enemy squadron. The "Stacked" fighters can disengage without having to strafe. DoT-Stacking: Before AP Bombs, this was the primary way for a USN CV to deal damage to a battleship, and still works. The principle is to force the target to "Burn DCP" (use their Damage Control Party and let it go on-cooldown) and then hit them with DoT damage while the target cannot repair it.
  2. The community has demonstrably expressed dissent at the ideas of BBs being "in a good place." BBs are currently the most played class, as evidenced by previous posters in this thread would you care to look, they have the highest win rates despite being the most played, which shows that they are performing significantly better the other ships, and they have the highest K/D out of all ships despite being the most played and the easiest to see. A DD torp on a BB is supposed to hurt, too. But it doesn't. Why? Press "R" to fix DoT, and have good TDS to immediately reduce incoming torpedo damage to a fraction or enough health that it really doesn't matter, and have good enough physics-defying turning or hydroacoustic search to dodge incoming torpedoes so that the DD can't ever hope to stack DoT, and have such good accuracy that they almost always hit at least 2 shells on a well-aimed shot, despite having the biggest guns with the most range and the most armor and health to protect those guns in the game. They are a detriment to the game because BB players are actively resisting changes to other classes that have been power-creeped, have much too high a population (like how you go into a battle loading screen and see 18 BBs in queue and less than half that number of DDs or cruisers). And what about when a 16" shell doesn't and can't, like on a DD? I've already told everyone here that what is happening is that the way shells arm is being changed so that, no matter what happens, a shell requires the full amount of armor required to arm it to actually arm. Currently, a shell can arm if it passes between compartments in a ship, no matter how much armor it has actually penetrated.
  3. They aren't. "A good place" isn't earned at the detriment of the rest of the game entirely. That would be like Al Capone saying, "No, don't go busting organized crime and repealing prohibition. Sure, there may be a lot of people dying all the time, but people like me are in a good place right now." The community does not agree, either. Sure, people go on and on about the "DD Mafia" trying to "rig" everything because, apparently, DDs are just sooo overpowered. But they have no evidence for either of these claims, and most DDs have very sub-optimal WRs. They also go on about CVs being soo overpowered, yet most CVs are sitting in the lower-end of their Winrate pools out of their respective tiers. They also go on about cruisers being soooo overpowered with "HE spam muh BB," which shows they clearly neither understand positioning nor intelligent use of the Damage Control Party Consumable. A BB Citadel on a BB hurts. A BB citadel on a cruiser almost always means that that cruiser can't have nearly as-much effectiveness for the entire rest of the match. So, in the end, battleships are not in a good place, and the people who say they are have no regard for the rest of the game as a whole.
  4. You Lost my Money DUE TO LAGGY Glitching

    All-Caps is not "plain and simple truth."
  5. Thank you. Here, have a gif: HE never overpens, however. That's the simplified formula Wargaming has always used.
  6. I'm not sure that that will happen, though. A 406mm shell only needs 66mm of armor to arm, and Khab has 50mm on each side. Which means that the shell will hit, arm, and then only be 10mm into the other side's armor (assuming it doesn't impact a bulkhead as well) before it arms and explodes.
  7. No, I addressed that earlier. I remarked that I was rather torn on that issue: On the one hand, I think shells and bombs of a sufficient caliber should never have their damage soaked-up by a tiny module, or even a gun. However, this would make RN BBs ludicrously strong.
  8. Next new tech tree?

    I believe that, according to WGFest or whatever they call it, Italian Cruisers are slated for the 4th Quarter (Q4) and the USN Cruiser split is slated for Q2. While I would rather have RN DDs, from what I've gathered from some of the Q&As, the RU BBs have already been designed and modeled and were planned to drop when the RN BBs dropped. The only reason they didn't was that the RU playerbase started a firestorm about how they were getting RU paper BBs before the Royal Navy. As opposed to appreciating and respecting other human beings rather than idolizing hunks of metal that mostly reside on the bottom of the ocean, scrapped for parts, or will otherwise never sail again? Good lord, you have your historical ships, anime-lovers have their ships. As a fan of more American or British animation (IE: Batman: Under the Red Hood or Adventures of Paddington [the cartoon, not the movie]) and submarine-combat history, I fall into neither camp. While I "respect" the history of the warships, I don't go rabid over it and worship my own conceptions and use those conceptions to bash anyone else I think is violating my most sacred goddess or warship safe-space just because they get creative. If you don't want the anime ships, don't buy 'em. If you see one, pretend you don't. Hell, there's even an option to turn them off now after all the whining. Now use it! Geez, people need to calm down with their fanaticism. The men on those ships (US, UK, Canadian, Australian,... and French ones anyway) died so that people could have the freedom to be creative so long as they respected the rights of other people. You aren't forced to play or see the anime ships which are apparently physically-weakening and lethal to you. Your rights haven't been violated.
  9. Actually, it isn't. An unchecked fire that burns for the full amount deals up-to 10k damage, or still less than a BB citadel hit does (16k for NC/Iowa/Montana), but all of that damage can be healed-back, especially if the ship healing it is Conqueror, whereas only 10% of citadel damage (read: 1.6k out-of the 16k from the enemy NC/Iowa/Montana) can be healed. And that's the problem. There's only one preferred ammo type for BBs for any target unless you're in an RN BB or you are really good and can master the situation and anticipate targets. That is a problem because it means that ammo selection is no longer important in one class and one class only. Sure, a lot of cruiser players shoot HE all the time. And a lot of them do badly overall. Des Moines? That's some of the best-penetrating and most-damaging cruiser AP in the game. It can citadel battleships of its tier under 8km, which makes-up for its lack of torpedoes. Zao? Has even heavier and more-damaging shells than Des Moines on-top of the largest torpedo broadside in the game, but doesn't have the improved autobounce angles, and the torpedoes have bad range and arcs for a cruiser. Even Cleveland and Atlanta are capable of dealing serious damage to other cruisers close-in with their AP. And anyone who HE spams from Furutaka is playing her wrong.
  10. But if all you can do is make strawman arguments, then I really don't understand what you are complaining about when you say I cause "noise."
  11. Did Bismarck sink or damage her in any way? No. And yet you think that battleships should just be able to sink destroyers in one hit... laughable at best.
  12. Oh, but when Bismarck was alone, the Polish Destroyer Piorun got within 12km of her before a near-miss forced her to veer away. Piorun took no damage from the attack, but was worried about the lack of back-up. But how could this be, if battleship had such amazing secondaries and guns? Once again, battleship hitrates in real-life on moving targets were in the realm of 2-3%. Anyway, in-all, lone encounters almost never happened. Why? Because why bank your hopes on one ship when you can send a fleet to do it? And in fleet combat, very few battleships ever actually destroyed destroyers. Most destroyers sunk were done so by aircraft, destroyers, or cruisers.
  13. Would it be better to allow battleships to do full damage on overpenetrations, then? The historical side is the examples for how several destroyers ended-up surviving multiple shell hits from battleships because the shells went right through ala Samuel B Roberts. Also, you should add Bismarck being sunk by battleships and cruisers to your "Battleships burned down by Cruisers" list, since she was crippled by aircraft and then finished-off with shells and torpedoes from surface ships before she scuttled.
  14. Actually, Bismarck did not sail alone. She sailed with the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. The only "lone battleship" I know of was Tirpitz, and that was due to undesirable circumstances forcing her to sit in-port trying to repair, and Tirpitz was promptly damaged by mini-subs and sunk trying to escape her repair port by aircraft.
  15. Were there ever such things as "lone battleships" at sea? No. So what's your point?