Jump to content

reaper_swpz

Members
  • Content Сount

    955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5660

Community Reputation

115 Valued poster

About reaper_swpz

  • Rank
    Ensign
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

380 profile views
  1. There is no reason for a BB (unless RN) to ever fire HE, OP AP damage is roughly equal to full penetration HE damage but AP can be used on all targets, and HE is useless against non DD targets. If BB HE penetration damage was raised to say 50% of shell damage there would actually be incentive to fire HE as it would hit for 2x OP AP damage, not the same. Typical example: NC AP 13100 damage, HE 5700 damage; AP OP damage = 1310, HE PEN damage = 1881 Compare this to: Lion AP 13000, HE 7200, AP OP damage = 1300, HE PEN damage = 2376 edit: Yamato is an exception: AP 14800, HE 7300; AP OP = 1480, HE PEN = 2409 But why would you load AP with Yamato to begin with?
  2. As I've said in other topics, (I'm a BB main): See DD, keep shooting, don't wait for angles, more shots in the air = more potential hits = sooner said DD is dead. A lot of BB used to wait for shots on say DD 12-16km away, just fire now; imagine if 3-4+ ships added their fire to the 2-3 cruisers already shooting which in some cases is enough to instantly delete a DD as it is? This change punishes BB self defense at point blank range though; that's unfortunate.
  3. reaper_swpz

    T11, T12 coming?

    A-20 and H-44 going to be a thing for tier 12 then? That would be... hilariously awesome. But if it's battle fier, that's long overdue - tier 10 should only be fighting tier 10, the performance gap is simply huge.
  4. I have a lot of free XP? News to me. I had to pay about $50 for Missouri as I didn't have enough free XP. I have about 380k right now, that's hardly "a lot".
  5. reaper_swpz

    US BB buff suggestions/theorys

    I don't play T3-5 T6: 30 second reload, better AA T7: increase speed, better AA T8: better TDS, historical speed, historical turn radius T9: historical turn radius, better secondaries T10: historical everything
  6. reaper_swpz

    AP Penetration on 0.7.11 Discussion Thread.

    So a few observations from a BB main: This change isn't as serious as people think it will be, it does open the possibility of "yolo" charging DD but generally the tactically sound thing to do if spotted by a DD or when faced with a charging DD is to retreat. The rate of closing given a 6-9 knot difference is minimal and so long as you have your stern to them, they won't be firing torpedoes. 10% OP damage simply means that BB will keep firing rather than wait for a DD to angle in some fashion before firing. It could in fact conceivably translate into more damage on DD as more shots are in the air at any given time. This is far from the "survivability" buff that the "DD-Mafia" is touting this as. 10% OP damage is equivalent to 33% HE damage in any case but without the module damage (unless RN). This isn't actually much of a change to begin with; most "good" BB players don't exactly expect to kill DD with penetration damage - that's a bonus, we kill them with OP damage This change, however, does over penalize BB with lower numbers of guns, say the Tier 7/8/9 German BB which have 6/8/8 guns respectively. Or Graf Spee which only has 6 guns. Ships with 12 guns still retain their ability to instantly delete a same tier DD through OP damage. This change isn't needed but it's also unlikely to alter things in any meaningful way. In fact, I'd argue that the 10% damage on even module damage will lead to DD being damaged substantially more, on my Khab I lose turrets very often as part of my play-style is to abuse the 0 damage pen on modules to absorb hits with turrets for no damage but a 10 second repair. This strategy is now null and void.
  7. reaper_swpz

    Disappearing ships

    I rather think the World of Tanks spotting system of staying lit for 6 seconds after being spotted would be useful here. Those Romulan cloaking devices I say!
  8. I find this reply equally stupid. Heals work if you are able to disengage and hide, they are worthless in the middle of a fight for the most part. Assuming both plays can aim, the better DPM of gumo will win. Khab simply doesn't have the rate of fire to kill before being killed in turn. As for the 50mm belt - aim at the funnels, kills the engines and the steering usually for full damage. But again, assuming both players can aim. Yes Khab can still kill gumo, only if gumo can't aim and Khab can aim; otherwise the DPM speaks for itself. Speed vs stealth in a team game is irrelevant. If you have low detection and support you keep everyone spotted and stay dark; your team does the work for you. You're also to hold caps far better as you aren't spotted a mile away. Let's say 2 gumo or 2 khab; 2 gumo will win; one will smoke, the other spots; between them they can put 16 fish into the water to deter direct charges and even if you charge; you're rushing into that DPM with no protection as that 50mm plating isn't in the bow. -- I do fine with Khab, in fact most of the time I eat other DD for lunch. However, gumo does give me problems and if I'm spotted by another DD and gumo is free to fire - the results aren't funny; heal or no heal. Even another Khab isn't as bad. That says something when fighting another Khab is preferable to fighting gumo.
  9. Better DPM, stealth and standard IJN torpedoes. 1v1 if gumo uses AP Khab will die first, heal or no heal, if Khab bow tanks then with only 4 guns, Khab will still die as the 50mm plating isn't on the bow. The 50mm plating doesn't actually do much and only foils poorly aimed shots - aiming at the funnels leads to knocked out engines from 1-2 shots. Khab excels at burning BB by staying at max range which is the minimum so as to be able to dodge their return fire. Against an IJN DD, if unsupported Khab usually wins, if supported, Khab will die without question.
  10. Haragumo is a Khab with stealth that can kill Khab. That should tell you what's in store for her.
  11. reaper_swpz

    Did the CV rework already have an effect?

    A minor correction if you don't mind. But I agree with this post; it's quite silly. All they had to really do was remove strafe and make manual drops have a wider cut off range so that they would be dodgeable.
  12. reaper_swpz

    Should AP Dive Bombers stay in game

    You want a 300m dispersion circle? I could go with that, it would mean a even a 15 degree turn for 5 seconds would evade the drop like it is for BB fire. You're obviously not a BB main; BB is many things, "consistent" is not one of them. You can aim perfectly and scatter the shot or, you can aim wide and those few shells that are over or short end up hitting a citadel. BB are untouchable? I must have missed that memo, BB are only mostly immune to AP fire when angled; HE, fires, etc still destroy them just as easily - and unlike other classes; BB cannot use WASD to dodge at will, not even against a single attacker. But that's another argument altogether.
  13. reaper_swpz

    CV Rework Feedback

    Are you guys going to adjust fire and flooding for CV then? As in either lower the chance drastically or make CV flooding/fires do far less damage? With 12 planes - 3 at a time - you have 4 chances to cause fires and floods; that's far more powerful than currently as if if you've failed to flood or set fires after one attack it's 2 minutes before you can attack again. Having 4 separate hits before rearming would allow you to potentially flood 4 different ships in a single run or set fires to 4 different ships in a single run. That's rather absurd no? The rework looks like it will balance things for those so called "high skill" players and the casual player-base. "Skill" is really just ping in this game for CV. The rockets look fun, it at least allows CV to defend against a stealthy DD where as conventionally the CV is screwed (short of a cross drop TB strike). edit: The only potential balance for CV prior to this WIP rework was pretty much as follows: auto drops made at least 50% as accurate as manual drops no fighter strafes (this is what breaks CV gameplay as the guy with better ping who places his strafes better auto wins the match; it also makes plane stats meaningless) increased attack run distance and no UFO like inertia less turning so that planes can't simply plant 12 torpedoes broadside to any ship and kill them with no chance of evasion substantially increased vulnerability for planes on their attack runs to both AAA and fighters But that's not the route WG went. To be frank if they had removed fighter strafes or never had them (except as a surface attack function to allow CV to defend against say DD), CV populations wouldn't be so broken. A player who can strafe will not only lock down but completely clean a player who cannot - what's the point? It would be like being in a DD that can't set fires and has no torpedoes having to fight Yamato. This is pretty much the one function that broke CV gameplay that's not to mention, ridiculous in all senses of the word.
  14. reaper_swpz

    Possible Solution to Radar

    You are aware that situational awareness was mandatory on all builds so WG simply made it default yes?
  15. reaper_swpz

    Alaska shoud be a Tier 7 Battleship

    I'm almost certain that Admiral Holland knew the risk he was taking that day but the alternative was simply unacceptable. It was either they engaged or Bismarck would break out and wreak havoc on the shipping - that would have done more to the war effort than the loss of a single battle-cruiser (Hood) and even another battleship (Prince of Wales). The British could trade even 3 heavy units per 1 German and still have ships to spare; the Germans couldn't afford to lose a single one. It's now known that Hood's protection was always considered "marginal" within the Admiralty and in fact in the 1930s they did some tests to see how 15" shells penetrating either the belt or deck could end up causing magazine hits as was the case for Hood. As Admiral Cunningham once said "It takes 3 years to build a ship, 300 to build a tradition"; the RN wouldn't have ran that day even if it was Yamato they faced and not Bismarck. That looks pretty slick. Would probably weigh a lot less too.
×