Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

1,147 Superb

About _RC1138

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


Recent Profile Visitors

1,617 profile views
  1. No HMCS Haida for Canada Day

    I have questions mouse, one: What does, 'get Boise'd' mean? Also, at least it seemed to me, Cossack was getting another round of testing as per the ST Server updates. Second: Not to be overly trite, but once they make the Cossack, is the Haida not exactly easy to make? I mean they already have a fireable 4" gun in game on the Black Swan, hull wise they were identical, as were the vast majority of their 'features' insofar as super-structure is concerned. Is it not likely, nay probable, that once the Cossack is finalized (hopefully in her 8 Gun form (seriously, tell Wargaming even *I'll* buy it if it comes out in 8 gun form, hell they can make the torps 4 km and I'd *still* buy a '41 setup Tribal) they can quickly shell out a Haida given that the setup is basically the same as the 3 gun Cossack just with the Black Swan's guns. TBH I assume the main reason they won't make a Haida is that the Commonwealth ships didn't sell well, being very gimmicky and/or too far away from a tree to be wrothwhile. You could build an actual tree for the Commonwealth, but, realistically, it will be better served to placed any ships from that tree in the Royal Navy tree. So, for three, do you not thing in your opinion that it may be better served to allow cross commander play between the Royal Navy and Commonwealth Trees? Would people not be more open to unique premiums if they could use them with either Commander? I want a County class desperately, and I have no particular problem with it being HMAS Canberra, other than I will *not* level a Commander to use it and thus, won't want it on gameplay principles. If I could stick one of my *12* 19 Point Commanders on it, that would be a very different story. I mean I have the HMAS Perth, but I don't even really play it in operations, mostly because I kept Leander and at least Leander has an attached 19 pointer.
  2. I think it's easier to just put a Credit/XP modifier attached to damage done at 'x' distance. So, for example: You do 10,000 Damage to a target. We say, hypothetically, the game rewards 500 XP and 15,000 Credits for that damage right now: Under this change: If that damage is done at <= 6 km receives a 1.0 XP/Credit modifier, meaning you are rewarded 500/15,000 XP/Credits If that damage is done at <= 8 km, you receive a 0.8 XP/Credit modifier, meaning you are rewarded 400/12,000 XP/Credits If that damage is done at <= 12 km, you receive a 0.6 XP/Credit modifier, meaning you are rewarded 240/7,200 XP/Credits If that damage is done at <= 14 km, you receive a 0.4 XP/Credit modifier, meaning you are rewarded 200/6,000 XP/Credits If that damage is done at <= 16 km, you receive a 0.2 XP/Credit modifier, meaning you are rewarded 100/3,000 XP/Credits If that damage is done at > 16 km, you receive a 0.1 XP/Credit modifier, meaning you are rewarded 50/1,200 XP/Credits So you can snipe all you want, nothing will stop you, which is why I don't like those new modes because they make it so it's not so much a bad idea, but it literally will STOP you from doing it, but if you do it under the above conditions, you will get nothing out of it other than a damage counter, and depending on the tier (where ranges go up considerably) you may find yourself incapable of sustaining payouts.
  3. March to Kronshtadt

    They can in fact do more than 1 thing at a time. I highly doubt the team doing the CV Revamp is the same team in charge of premium ship design/balancing. Two very different sets of expertise. And like I said, my gut says that it will be a ranked reward, due to fitting the pattern, but I still intend to wait as if I had to choose what to spend ~1 mil Free XP on, Kron or a DM w/ RN CL Heal, I'm taking that DM every time. I can always scoop up the Kron right before if/when they took it off the market, if the Salem's not released prior, but I don't want to have to WAIT to grab the Salem from the day it comes out.
  4. CB vs. CC is a semantically difference; borne to skirt existing treaties and avoid the creation of new ones. They are also borne of legal definitions, not engineering/naval ones, much akin to how modern Destroyers are actually cruisers in every single way (and, ironically, most existing cruisers are actually Destroyers). As such, for objectivity, you stick to the established rules of what a ship was, typically based on its designed role: A Cruiser was designed to protect trade routes, operate alone or as part of a small squadron, to be used offensively in operations as well as defensively, and to have VERY high sea keeping, endurance, and range. A Battlecruiser was designed to play favorably to a cruiser on a cruiser's home turf, thus needing all the abilities of a cruiser plus better weaponry and typically slightly better armor. A CB (Cruiser, Large) was designed to be... a ship capable of playing favorably against enemy cruisers on their home turf, thus needing all the abilities of a cruiser plus better weaponry and typically slight better armor. The difference is pure legal semantics or, frankly, terminology originating (in the case of the Soviet Navy) from a country for whom Naval understandings were extremely limited. This is a bad analogy: a Heavy Tank had a specific role. A Medium tank had a specific role. A light tank had a specific role. A Main Battle Tank likewise has a specific role. None of these are the same role. A Sherman was not an MBT of it's day, nor was a Panther, nor was a Tiger or a Churchill. An MBT plays a totally different role from those established and thus required a different terminology. But a CB does NOT play a different role than a CC. That's why you stick to role, as it eliminates superficial differences such as arbitrary numeric definition (Calibers > or < qualifying one way or another; displacements/weight qualifying one way or another), because a role is absolute. If a ship/tank is designed for a SPECIFIC role, than it really only comes down to HOW WELL does it perform that role, but it still qualifies as that role, and thus, classification. Not really because it pretty much just describes what was different about the HMS Invincible vs. the previous Armored Cruiser Class, the Minotaur, and the counterpart Battleship Class, HMS Dreadnought. Basically a CC is whatever they were not, and that's pretty much what I described. There isn't, that's the point, that's why the DK Class is a CC not a CA. If contemporary BB's being built/in use at that time mounted the same quality/shell mass guns, thus is very simple to delineate. This is why you don't go back and re-rate the Invincibles with their 12 inch guns as CB's even though that's what the Alaska carried; because at the TIME it was built, BB's were mounting those same quality guns; be it penetration ability, caliber, and/or shell mass. The Alaskas in that constraint, still can qualify as CC's due to the continued existence of 12" BB's in combat usage at that time, and the fact their guns performed favorably for the COMMONLY still in use 14" guns of the USN. duh Because you don't *use* designations set up by LAWYERS/POLITICIANS, you use the ones set up by Engineers: CC's are as described by the engineers who *designed* them: Up gunned/armored cruisers capable of fighting in and around the same seas as cruisers with the abilities necessary to do so independently of a fleet. My 6 criteria just EXPAND that definition to be more quantifiable. As mentioned above, they did not go back and re-rate the Arkansas to be... IDK an Armored Cruiser? Nor did they do that with the the New Mexicos (since the 12" guns on the Alaskas performed BETTER than the 14" guns). BB quality can itself be described simply as any primary armament that is mounted on a BB: the DK class Main Battery was used on the Scharns (which were *designed* as BB's, not CC's (they are NOT larger cruisers, they are BB's and designed as such)) and likewise the Main Battery was basically a tightened up 14" gun from the USN and maintained similar ballistics qualities. And again, role of the ship comes into the biggest play: Cruisers are designed to protect and work as a group to maintain sea lanes, Battlecruisers (and CB's by all definitions, thus the difference being largely semantic) are designed to HUNT those cruisers on their own turf and bring armament that no afloat cruiser can withstand and typically enough armor to give any cruiser a hard time. I'd assert given their sheer size, gun caliber, performance, and crew size, they MUCH more fit BB than CA: I know you've seen this picture before but it does highlight the top, Alaska, next to the bottom, Iowa, and just how lose in size they were to the LONGEST BB's ever put to sea. Likewise compared to a Baltimore vs an Iowa: highlights just how small what was even known as a SUPER Cruiser was to a BB. The Alaska's were not reactivated for a REASON; they crewed so high for a gain, at the time of Korea/Vietnam, to be comparable to a BB which is why they went with rearming the New Jersey.
  5. Reward good play, don't punish bad play. They should give XP/Credit multipliers as a base rate to distance to target so that you can get 10k XP if you brawl/move up, and barely anything if you sit back and snipe. People will figure that out FAST when they cannot afford to even keep T6 ships supplied.
  6. March to Kronshtadt

    Personally I'm holding off on buying the Kron till I see what they do with the Salem. If the Salem drops as the first Free XP TX, especially since at the moment she has the RN Cruiser heal (all I've ever wanted: a USN Cruiser with an RN Cruiser heal) that makes her far more potentially valuable than the Kron. That said, I think the Salem is almost definitely going to be a Ranked Reward as she fits the pattern to well of USN Premiums with wacky consumables, but I can still hope.
  7. I disagree that the Definition of what a CC is or is not is subjective/personal. Given that we have the writings, the design plans, the explinations, and evolution of the CC type ship, we can look back and see EXACTLY what a CC was an was not. I've posted the following before so it bears repeating here: With this in mind, we can say we have a definition that is fairly objective in what makes a CC a CC: Starting with a Cruiser Design, and scaling up (or improving upon prior CC designs, but not, *NOT* starting with a BB and shaving armor off) Battleship *quality* (not quantity or even caliber in some cases) armament Speed equal to or greater than most cruisers contemporary to design period Endurance equal to or greater than most cruisers contemporary to design period Similar emphasis to 'all big gun' design that her (Invincibles) counterpart (not sister) HMS Dreadnought had (otherwise you are just making a slightly larger armored cruiser) Higher emphasis on sea-keeping than on BB's (that's why CC's had different hull shapes). As such, the Kron and Stalingrad qualify as CC's as they check *all* 6 criteria. And as such, given that nearly all CC's in game (other than the Graf Spee) are treated as *Battleships* it is annoying that for some reason the RU ships are exempt from this and yes, it does seem thinly veiled to keep them immune to current/future specialty DWT's.
  8. I think the problem many people have is that they are indeed Battlecruisers, by all standards of definition, and there ARE CC's in game, and the vast majority of them are treated as BB's.
  9. Premium Ship Review #100

    Speaking also as a Royal Navy Fanatic, the Lion might be the best BB in the game behind Conqueror and it's AP is why: it is disturbingly potent and moreso because many BB's assume you are a loaded with HE and will happily show you a broadside. So far all my highest damage, highest tanked damage, and most Citadels in a single match, all come from Lion. I only load HE in the first salvo of the game, 1 to make everyone think I'm another HE Spammer and 2, because that's the moment DD"s are most likely to be spotted and I've caused more Detentions with Lion's guns than I care to admit. That said, I disagree vehemently with this: They are anti-Camper BB's. That is their job, and they are good at it. You (speaking broadly) cannot complain about stagnant gameplay and constant bow tanking and not think that the 1 BB that EXCELS at punishing that style is a problem. IMO given how almost OP the T9/10 AP on the RN BB's are, it almost would have made more sense to give the RN BB's a HUGE alpha boost, and limited them to HE Only, if only to highlight EXACTLY what they are designed to do: DD hunt (cause they are sneaky as hell) and punish anyone who thinks sitting still bow on is a valid tactic. All that aside, even though , sorta, it sounds like this would be a ship that compliments my playstyle, I'm gona pass. I do not like paper ships, paper premiums worse, and one thing I kinda liked about the RN Premiums was that lack of fake ships. They should have just made this basically a Warspite for T9: Normal HE performance, nutsy AP accuracy and performance, super low detection, (somehow) improved secondaries, and RN Cruiser Heal. I don't even think Hydro is needed tbh.
  10. Angling = Useless

    14.3 * x Use it, love it, own it.
  11. Not really; those might be some of the only ships on the short list of ships that DON'T benefit from CE, since they are in fact brawlers/mid range harassers that are better suited being close enough for their secondaries to engage and thus, no point to CE. The easiest way to stop HE spammers in the GK: drive up next to them and let your secondaries tear them appart, stop trying to snipe from 18km with it, that's not what it's good at (also, not for nothing, but the GK takes MORE damage at long range than it does at close range).
  12. Baltimore needs a range boost, even just 1 km. For 1 it feels short compared to other cruisers who also have longer range AND torps, and for 2, it's a drop of ~1km from the previous Cruiser New Orleans which makes no sense why the much better build, much better FCS Baltimore would have worse range than the nearly 15 year older New Orleans.
  13. Yeah it's still a bit over the top. I was able to get a 5 star run but 4 more were either failures or 1-2 stars. They really need to dial back the bot Difficulty, if only their flamethrowers.
  14. So yes. The guy who has "RC1138" hasn't ever played a WoWs match and hasn't played a WoT's match since 29/08/2011 19:56. I can't imagine that person is EVER coming back. And I'm stuck with a bloody underscore...
  15. Frankly, I would say my gunnery skills across the board are what they are because of all the time I spend in the Cleveland/Fletcher/Kidd. Not only do you learn proper leading, but you learn how to figure out players move and how to sacrifice PART of a salvo to land at least 1 turret worth of shots.