Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

2,095 Superb


About _RC1138

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,626 profile views
  1. _RC1138

    WG why do you hate the Italians so much?

    A simpler reason is that they do not model ships as ships in this game. They basically are just armour, guns, and torps on a hull of x displacement. Things like sea-keeping, roll action, stability, handling ect, do not factor in at all. Likewise many of those features that effect overall performance are something that must be observed; they cannot be predicted from blueprints. In some cases, this works to a ship's advantage: paper-ship heavy lines like the RU and KM can have outstanding performances that are likely implausible given how those nations typically built ships but 'on paper' they say they can. Likewise it can help ships that were notoriously poor sea-keepers, unstable, with poor handling, as were IJN and early USN ships. Conversely, this hurts nations that designed ships to work around the world with great effect, and/or took into account these other features, like later USN Ships, RN Ships, and Italian ships. In the RU's case, they are benefiting both from not taking into account ship handling (Russian ships were very bad) and said handling being found during actual use (they are mostly paper lines).
  2. _RC1138

    Just got the Minotaur. Any suggestions?

    Know your enemy's guns better than he does: there are gun/range combination where taking it broadside is better (shells don't arm and overpen) and vice versa. USN BB's and CA's and to a lesser extent, IJN BB's, are you prime dangers as their floaty shells will hit your cit at most ranges, even into 4-5 km which pretty much overpen 100% of the time from other ships, and in the case of USN CA's; their improved autobounce angles mean you'll take cits you were not expecting, to say nothing of having radar. Always shoot DM's first if you have multiple targets available. Aim high on BB's; you'll do full 33% pens on their upper belts and angled sections of their SS. Use your heal pro-actively; if you are caught in the open, and a BB is targeting you, start healing BEFORE the rounds hit. The reason is if the shells land not all at once, you may take multiple cits over several seconds and the Mino's heal is fast enough to 'catch up.' I cannot count how many times I've tanked an extra cit purely because I had the heal going already. Remember and repeat this phrase to yourself: "There is no reward for finishing the match with leftover heals." Spam fire is your friend, keep those guns talking. You can shift rudder fast so a favorite early game tactic of mine is to spam fire at 18 km (I take the range upgrade as the RoF upgrade is diminishing returns) and get the whole enemy team to fire at me. I'd say more than anything, this can influence a match's outcome as it keeps them from shooting at my teammates and their more cowardly players run right away. Also focusing a single target is rarely worthwhile in the Mino. She excels at shifting fire and keeping the whole enemy team on their toes. Don't be afraid to run and gun; her fast rudder, quick start, funky armor (19mm plating takes more overpens than pens), and insane turret traverse make her a great open water mid-ranged harasser. Don't be afraid to shift sides. You'll only lose a few seconds of fire and it really screws up enemy aiming. Her torps are super trolly. 10 Per side, on a fast reload, and you can stealth torp. I prefer to launch 1 at a time at a target, every couple of seconds, as it makes it super hard for them to predict where the next one will come from. Always take sonar if with you're running smoke. Start it ~15-20 seconds after you smoke an stop, so as not to waste it's duration when it is highly unlikely torps are coming. Never smoke up within 15 km of a radar ship, especially Missouri (who is your tippy top enemy as he can cit you from most ranges and angles). Loadout is hard and easy: most of the standard Captain skills for CL's do not apply (IFHE, DE ect). I run, at the moment: PM/PT, SSE/LS, SE/SI/VI, CE. I used to run AFT instead of PT and VI, but with it's diminished effects (IMO) to AA (miss the old 7.2 km AA range) CE is the only T4 skill that makes sense on mino anymore.
  3. _RC1138

    Iowa better than Missouri?

    For practical purposes, she doesn't. It's just the transverse forward bulkhead that's a tad thicker and there isn't a gun/range combination that CAN penetrate the Iowa's thinner bulkhead but CANNOT penetrate the Missouri's thicker one. It's a difference that isn't a difference.
  4. _RC1138

    WG why do you hate the Italians so much?

    I would never try to assume why WGing places what ship at what tier; that went out long ago. But from an *engineering* standpoint, you are hard pressed to find more finely made ships than Italian made ships. Not the most robust design, but that is typically more indicative of availability of funds (armour is expensive as are additional frames), but by far set the standard on cruising hulls and efficiency of design. Only the British could match Italian Cruiser design, and did so with far more available funds thus making the process easier. Really only early/mid Italian destroyers were poor, and that was mostly out of trying to leapfrog with France and not allowing their engineers to design them THEIR way. Really from an engineering standpoint, the only part of Italian ships that I'd give a resounding 'D-' to is their guns: Italian made large bore guns were awful. It is no coincidence that their best performing naval artillery were designed and/or manufactured by Vickers. I'm not a big car guy, so the analogy I would make are tools: British Ships are like a Mattock: very strong, multipurpose, very hard to find a job they cannot do, and do so without sacrificing much in the way of utility but are heavier and bigger and a bit ungainly without proper training; american ships are like a Hatchet; simple, over built for the job they are designed to do, and as such, cost more than a more appropriately scaled tool, great at what they are designed to be but lack that multipurpose ability. Italian ships are like a scribe or an exacto knife; difficult to use but with the right skill and time, can pretty much do everything ever needed and with a level of finance hard to ever compete with. Japanese ships are like a banana; just not useful in any way other than trying to cause the enemy to slip up by accident.
  5. _RC1138

    WG why do you hate the Italians so much?

    Here I thought it was wehraboos and weeaboos that had the market cornered on undeserved reverence, when it turns out the pizzaboos are pretty fervent as well. So tell me, oh great 'honest' one: why did the Italian Fleet(s) lose most of their battles against the British and/or Allied fleet(s)? At least my criticisms are based on the actual performance of the ships and their crew and commanders, not just some parroted jingoism like this: As I said before, Italy had fantastic ships, but a terrible navy.
  6. _RC1138

    Name the ship you think is worthless....

    I've gotten 2 solo warriors in it. One against Lert. Otherwise, I'd say worthless, as in throw away, no reason to play? Varyag. The tree ship is better and Aurora is better
  7. _RC1138

    Can you guess what is missing here?

    You have one of these too? I'm not the only lunatic?
  8. _RC1138

    Can you guess what is missing here?

    No Commonwealth nor Pan American nor Polish either. And Poland's been in the game longer than the Pan Asian and German.
  9. It has 2. As does the Ranger. And to the best of my knowledge, so does Ryujo. In fact, the same is true of Implacable at T8. So this was NOT a Royal Navy carrier and if you cannot even pay enough attention to what ship did this, then why does your opinion matter?
  10. _RC1138

    WG why do you hate the Italians so much?

    Just so we're clear, most of the Italian fleet, which is the context we are talking about, used Coal Fire ships, not oil. Even the reconstructed Cavours, who could take both, predominately used Coal fire. Only later cruisers, destroyers, and the Litorrio's used oil. But ~2/3's of the Italian fleet, especially as of 1939, used Coal as the primary or sole means of power production. Way far off on all points. 1) Most battles were inconclusive because the *Italians* broke off, due to lack of radar and nightfighting techniques that rendered them impotent in twilight. Even battles they were winning, Second Battle of Sirte for example, they turned tail once night fell out of fear of the tables turning. 2) The Italians suffered the most one-sided at sea battle in WWII at Matapan. Even worse than the american defeat at Savo Island. It is almost the Trafalgar of the Battle for the Mediterranean. And the only reason it takes place is because of gross incompetence on the part of Italian naval leadership. Much too can be said of their other major defeats at sea. Conversely, the Italian Navy experienced only 2 victories during the Mediterranean Conflict involving surface actions, both of which were hardly decisive and typically did not involve major fleet units on either side as part of the gun line. Italian air units and frogmen had FAR greater success than the Italian fleet ever did and it is much more accurately defined as a fleet in being than an offensive or even defensive navy. 3) As I said earlier, the reasons I will never understand, but while the Italian merchantmen were consistently able to deliver supplies, those numbers are misleading as they ignore almost every Italian merchant ship was sunk either in the African Harbor, or on their way back. By the 43' Armistice ~93-94% of the entire Italian Merchant fleet had been sunk.
  11. _RC1138

    Lol had Forgotten this is Spring Break Month

    Really? Cause I do not assume everyone else on the internet is a 40+ year old Nautical Engineer. I frankly assume most people are children/child-like-mental-capacity until they prove otherwise. And in a game like this, I mostly assume they are the later, not the former. Google: [Name of thing in the Universe] wiki Profit. There is at least 1, if not 2, wiki's for EVERYTHING that exists. There are 3 Halo Wiki. There were 2 Mass Effect Wiki's (Bioware wide one and the ME one). There are at least 3 Cake wiki's. I think there's 4 versions of a movie Database including IMFDB which also lists every gun in movies. I think there's 5 for Marvel and 4 for DC. There's like 3 tank wiki's, not including WoT's/WT's. The inability to use a wiki in this context is inexcusable: how can you be JUST technically proficient enough to find, register, download and install WoWs but *not* capable of searching for the wiki to explain basic information? The only logical answer is laziness, the most unforgivable of sins.
  12. _RC1138

    Lol had Forgotten this is Spring Break Month

    Confirmation Bias. And WGing does do surveys on age time to time and supposedly this is a fairly older player base. Which makes sense: the slower, prodding gameplay (even DD's are 'slow' compared to a Twitch Shooter) yet limited 20 minute game time fits an older audience more than say, Fortnite's age group.
  13. _RC1138

    Some Thought in Soviet BB’s Design

    USN is kinda meh at most tiers at the moment. Meh T3 (and always was). Meh T4 (even compared to other tree T4's, much less Nikolai). Meh T5's (always was, and worse now next to Kongo, Iron Duke, and GC), Meh T6 (Compared to Warspite/QE, Bayern, and Fuso). Meh T7 (super meh at times). T8's nice. T9's nice. Monty has wavered from good to worst a few times.
  14. _RC1138

    Lol had Forgotten this is Spring Break Month

    This. Most players suck at this game. And I do not mean WR, I mean basic competency and critical thinking skills.
  15. _RC1138

    HMS Implacable Initial Impressions

    Interesting about the Vindicators, but they were pulled relatively early in favor of the Avenger as the Avenger was used in 42 off of the Ranger to sink German Merchant ships off of Norway so the time with Vindicators could not have lasted long. And the Ranger was the first CV to get Dauntlesses. They in fact did most of the initial testing for their landing/takeoff on the Ranger. Same with the improved F4F. And either way, the T6's *USED* to carry F4F's, TBF's, and Dauntlesses so it is not a reach to expect them on the new T6. The old CV system had Vindicators STOP at T5 (and iirc, Dauntlesses were ON the Bouge as well, meaning we sort of have T4 planes right now on the T6). And likewise they ramp up WAY to fast, with Helldivers never even being on the Lexington prior to her sinking, and Helldivers in general not being Torpedo Bombers (capable, but EXTREMELY rarely used) in favor of the later versions of the Avenger. T8 should have F6F's, Avengers, and Either initial Helldivers or more appropriately for Lexington, late production Dauntlesses. I hate the plane choices.