Jump to content
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

25 Neutral

About kudlak

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Profile on the website kudlak

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

224 profile views
  1. Dear BB If you want me to stop throwing HE and setting fire, please show me your complete broadside within reasonable distance for me. So I can grind you down with AP. From CA With Love
  2. For some ships propulsion mod have more interesting effect in terms of dodging. Some ships has short rudder shift time that trivialize -20% reduction (i.e. Benson. 2.7sec -> 2.16 sec...you really need it?) Some ships has turning radius too wide and reduced rudder shift time won't help much for evasive maneuver (i.e. Schors) Instead of swinging, slowing down and go back is another good way for dodging
  3. Kamikaze families are officially OP ships (and contract between camo designer expired, I think) that won't come back to prem shop in near future. If you can do the same regularly in, say, Mutsuki, it would be little different story, tho.
  4. Oh hi my kameraden, you're the lucky guy of the day as I'm rather rare encounter in the forum...
  5. Just give high tier IJN DDs Flecther's Mk16 Mod. 1 instead of Type93 mod3 That's everything what they need. I'd give up 25% of alpha damage per torpedo and 1.5km range for 30%-ish faster reload AND 0.3km torpedo detection range.
  6. it is not the one, but several ships I wouldn't play again with them; 1. Colorado--it was just a pain. real pain. I played it before the buff...so, it was more painful. I'd rather use New Mex for T7-9 matches. 2. Karlsruhe--yeah, I played this ship before the buff, too. Colo and karlsruhe was the only ships I burned my cache of free xp to skip. 3. Emerald--or, more like, tier 2-5 RN cruisers. AP-only in the low tier was serious pain as there were literally no way to counter BBs except lucky torpedo hits.
  7. Alaska class why?

    I had a thought that Alaska would be Tier7 premium BB, just because...hey, look at Scharnhorst. But, because WG announced Stalingrad is T10 CA, I started thinking Alaska could be T10. For those who don't know detail of Starlingrad-class heavy cruiser, it planned to have 3x3 12 inch guns with 35kt speed. It sounds like the Alaska class, isn't it? Edit:typo
  8. No, they are in good shape in my honest opinion. I often see whining about Yamato 18.1in lolpen but, meh, I don't think there are any major imbalances between BBs at this moment. Yes, even infamous Conq is within range of decent balance in my viewpoint However.... USN and IJN BBs have been here for a while, and we now sees RN and KM, which have rather vivid appealing points (and gimmick) compared to the old couple. Although I don't know what it would be, sometime I want something flashy for IJN and USN BBs. I know there supposed to be some plain, simple, basic ships to be benchmark for other newcomers, but...oh well
  9. I would say reducing RoF and AP damage (and maybe sigma and dispersion) is more reasonable than reducing caliber size. Yamato's low alpha coming from less # of shells compared to 12-guns BB in T10 is considered fine because of its ability to lolpen, high sigma, and small dispersion. Tier 9s have only 9 guns mostly, therefore to fill the gap, both alpha and sustainable damage should be reduced. Reduced RoF (maybe 34-36sec reload?) and lowered sigma would reduce damage output in long term considerably, coupled with already-slow turret traverse. I don't know about alpha, though--reduced AP damage? or equipped with obsolete old shells? If reload is 40sec, I wouldn't ask for nerfed AP damage and/or sigma. 33% Slow-firing rate compared to regular T9s but hard-hitting and lolpen like T10 sounds ok to me...at least for now. Musashi is almost destined to have worst AA in T9 and rudder shift time but it would be justified by the best torpedo defense and most likely the highest health pool in T9....
  10. Well, this is not a humor I expected... This is what I (kind of) expected.
  11. Sure, once captain and crews got experienced with equipment, they may turn turret faster by better maintenance and knowing mechanical limitation, or change shell types faster by some sort of intuitions, or increase module HP by again better maintenance and emergency patching. Experienced crew may tweak torpedoes' setting well to run them faster, damage control better to virtually increase hull HP, load ammo faster (even if Akizuki's hoist can carry 15 ammo per minutes) and make their effective range further by aiming better or control flight group better to increase size in squadrons. But, well, how come only one of the most skilled captain and crewmen can use RPD and IFHE, which is completely not related to someone's "skill"? So, once captain got experience and skilled in naval tactics, they suddenly remember how to use some components and equipment of ships which were never used? How about concealment expert? maybe augmented psionic power of the captain defies law of physics? (I understand planet which WoWs takes in place has a kind of different law of physics...or "scaling" s than Earth) Someone please enlighten this miserable beta tester by providing clever explanation of some of mysterious "captain's" skills. No, this is not a serious question but I would like to hear how you deal with possible paradoxes of captain skills.
  12. voted for yes. Ocean map is just such poor children (because there were 2 Ocean maps) of community, we should remember. We demanded the map with passion during CBT and we got it, and now it is removed because many of us hates it. It is US who brought the map into the game. We have responsibility....
  13. Hint: USN DD HE 5% + DE 2% = 7% KM DD HE(Gaede's 128mm HE) 6% + DE 2% = 8% RU DD HE = 8% Good comparison candidate, isn't it? Unless you believe DE has hidden effect not published nor discovered.
  14. Thanks to your test, I started suspecting RU DD which uses same shell as Khab's, or some particular ship (including Tashkent you used) may have hidden modifier in fire starting chance, and I just pointed out a fact you have missed on your last test. If you still believe what is published by WG, you can test it by using Gnevny and/or Minsk for single gun mount as they use same shells as Khab and Tash. You can use USN DDs as they have single gun mount as counterpart. I expected you wanted to prove your point, taking further research and experiment to strengthen your claim. However, seems like you just want to keep what you have right now and avoid criticisms and further testings. Sorry for the last post, it was my mistake, and my bad.
  15. I'm not doubting the test result, but I think you forgot a factor which need to be considered. "A section already has fire cannot catch another fire" Right, you moved to different section to hit once a section catches a fire and is very valid move. No, I don't think it is enough. Because in most case multiple shells hit same section, we have no way to know which shell initiated fire. For example, 4 shell hits a section and a started a fire, but how many of the shells triggered fire? Maybe RNG approved the shells and all of them started fire, but UI only show 1 fire started. The triggerd fire after the initial, displayed one would be wasted in this test. You cannot use turret with multiple guns for this testing if you want precise result. You must use turret with single gun and fire one by one.