Jump to content

Jemention

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    15023

Community Reputation

74 Good

About Jemention

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,004 profile views
  1. Jemention

    Ise Full Carrier functionality modification

    I do not understand why you seem to think this would be relatively easy. First, looking at actual conversions attempted on other ships, albeit they were attempted full conversions, it took a lot of time. Specifically looking at the Ibuki and the Seydlitz. The Ibuki was launched as a cruiser and then taken in hand for conversion to a carrier in 1943 and still wasn't completed by 1945 when work was stopped. The Seydlitz was almost entirely completed in 1939 before put on hold, selected for Carrier conversion with work starting around March of 1942 with work stopping in June of 1943 with the ship still not complete. Why you think the removal of the existing aft superstructure (which wasn't completely done historically), an even larger more massive rear superstructure and hangar built, the removal and then reconstruction on the central superstructure to the side and a forward landing deck structure built, both with sliding sections robust enough for take off and landing of 10k+ lb Aircraft that can slide and cover a gap of over 100ft unsupported as "relatively easy" boggles the mind. Note if you have some sort of support structure running above the turrets, you are almost certainly severely limiting the upper turret's firing range since it will not be able to elevate its gun barrels to the full 43 degrees it could historically. This doesn't address the stability concerns of that massive rear superstructure and hangar that is wildly overhanging the original hull form, nor does it cover how the removal of two turrets relatively low on the centerline of the ship allows you to fit an airwing of 50+ mid to late ww2 aircraft mounted high up on a structure so far out from the hull. If you need a visual for how extreme you've made your flight deck, I suggest you look in game and compare the actual carriers and existing Hybrid ships that have been added then look at your drawing again. It seems like you are trying to figure some way to add another line of hybrid ships to balance out the fictitious US ships. Rather than trying to make some sort of supercarrier hybrid, I'd suggest you consider more modest air wings. It would probably work better in having a smaller gimmicky squadron for game play reasons. After all, if you focus so much on the aircraft for game play, then what is the point of having the guns on the ship? Personally I think the hybrid line is a mistake as is. Frankly I would prefer if WG developed a Hybrid cruiser line for Japan that would focus more on the occasional use of the aircraft but is otherwise focused on the guns. This would better fit with the majority of Japan's actual Hybrid cruisers like Ōyodo, Tone, and the converted Mogami.
  2. Jemention

    Ise Full Carrier functionality modification

    Ignoring other factors as have already been pointed out by Ensign_Ctulhu, you are also overlooking a very similar setup that was actually tried with early British carriers. The central superstructure was found to simply create too much turbulence for landing aircraft and the risk of them slamming into the central structure was too high.
  3. Jemention

    Logging on issues

    I've had the same issue lately.
  4. The specific designs may not be, but at least they are from nations that did the build ships for the smaller navies. I actually find the Tier 9 to be more questionable than the Tier 10. Using a preliminary design for a late WW1 scout cruiser seems a bit off.
  5. Glad to see the Grom and the Split. Not sure about the 9 and 10 but at least they make a bit more sense than the Pan-American CL line. Either the Grau or one of the Brooklyns would have made more sense at Tier 8. The Proto-Worcesters, especially with Torpedoes, make very little sense.
  6. Can you explain how using the Grau, the Latorre or one of the actual Brooklyns that served wouldn't be very consistent? Other than the lack of torpedoes on the Brooklyns or Grau, which frankly the top tiers shouldn't have anyway if they're going with late US CL designs, they seem like they'd fit just fine. WG's stated reasoning is an excuse, nothing more. In order to get people to spend on a "free to play" game, you need them to stick around. To do that, you need your free content to at least be interesting. There is no real pull here for this line, other than La Argentina and to a lesser extent Coronel Bolognesi, there isn't much of a draw. Based on your previous posts, you don't really care about the historical tie ins, others do. WG has made it quite clear that they like to "have their cake and eat it too". Claiming "history" when it suits them and then throwing it away when it doesn't. It's annoying and frustrating.
  7. I quit after 1 game like that yesterday. Surprised you made it through 3.
  8. I was responding to FlandrexCirno's assertion that everything in the last 3 years has been pretty consistent and to a lesser extent, the excuse provided by Ahskance in regards to "cohesive play experience" & "smooth progression" by pointing out some pretty inconsistent characteristics of some recent lines. I don't actually have an issue with a line needing to be very consistent. But I find it hilarious that WG is using it as an excuse. Particularly when they have gone out and changed lines and removed options (Russian CA and British BB) to "smooth progression" when it comes to gun calibers and then put in 2 different lines (IJN CL and Pan-Asian CL) where the lines bounce around with different gun calibers just as one example. My personal suspicion is that WG had some left over development work from the USN CL line and figured they could fit it in the Pan-American line to save time, money, and to reserve more of the actual historic vessels that most likely sell far better then the non-historical "what ifs" for Premiums. WG does need to make money, but I think they are walking a very fine line. They also need to keep people playing, which means the tech lines need to be interesting and have some draw as well. This line has very little draw for me as is. I have no interest in pseudo-Worcesters, there is no draw. Ultimately we'll see if WG is correct or if this is another dud of a line.
  9. Jemention

    DD's vs BB Main guns

    I'm sure Admiral Kurita was also very upset when his BBs and Cruisers kept over penning American DDs off Samar as well.
  10. Yes, lets consider some recent "pretty consistent" lines. Consider the Pan-Asian CL line, go from a Tier 5 British hull with 152mm main battery to Tier 6 British hull with 133mm battery to Tier 7 American hull with 127mm main battery to Tier 8 Soviet with 130mm main battery to Tier 9 and 10 American hulls with 127mm batteries. Very Consistent. Maybe the German BC line? Where we go from Tier 7 with 8 gun broadside to a Tier 8 with 6 gun broadside back to Tiers 9 and 10 having 8 guns again. Perhaps the new Japanese CL line? We go 152mm to 155mm to 150mm for main batteries. I know, the upcoming American Hybrid BB line! Lets see, we go from a line with fore and aft main guns to a Tier 8 with an only forward battery, followed by a Tier 9 where we get an aft turret back but only two barrels compared to the triples up front, followed by a Tier 10 with two forward triples and one aft quad. I'm sure that will be very consistent for players. /s There's plenty of recent evidence that WG throws out some of their rules on consistency when it benefits them. That's not necessarily bad either, makes for a more interesting playing experience. It just makes their claims for seeking "consistency" for this line a bit threadbare as an excuse.
  11. I was, I'm not anymore after seeing the proposed line up.
  12. More lines than not don't "naturally" upgrade like that, its hardly an argument. How does Tallinin "naturally" upgrade into Riga? Or Edinburgh into Neptune?
  13. Other than not having Torpedoes, I don't see how the Grau wouldn't fit. Its a eight gun CL roughly the correct size for the slot, the proto-Worcester is also an 8 gun CL of about the same size. The tiers 9 and 10 really shouldn't have Torpedoes either since they are post war US cruisers supposedly. There is precedence for cruiser lines to lose their torpedoes, both the older US cruiser lines and much more recent Russian CA line lose their torpedoes.
  14. With the proposed line up, its another line I won't feel like playing above Tier 7. This puts WG at 0 out 6 on announced upcoming lines that I am interested in, jury is still out on the Euro DD split until we get more details but I'm not hopeful. It sucks because I was looking forward to the PanAm lines but this is a mess of a line with horrible justifications.
  15. Will echo others, glad to see the line but disappointed in how much fantasy is in the line, especially when there are alternatives with actually built ships and designs that could have been slotted in place. Tier 1 - Ok but fix the armament please. Tier 2 - Ok, at least it actually existed, albeit is something of a clone of an already existing premium. Tier 3 - Instead of using a clone of an actual Spanish ship, why not use the Bahia class? Yes, tonnage wise its possibly too close to the Tier 2 but they were faster and had torpedoes which should be enough to be an improvement over the Tier 2. Tier 4 - Ehh, I guess its kind of plausible but surely you could fit in one of the design proposals? Tier 5 - This seems good, exact tier placement can be argued but its a real ship that actually served. I am curious about the missing secondaries but assume that's because the model doesn't appear to be finished. Tier 6 - Seems like the Almirante Latorre (Swedish Tre Kronor class actually sold to Chile) would have fit in very nicely here. No need for a fake Italian half clone. Only problem I can see with it is the name interfering with a possible Premium BB or BB tech line for Pan-America. Tier 7 - Ok, an actual ship is good. Tier 8 - Why can't we use the Almirante Grau here? Remove the Dutch Air strike and refocus the ship on its guns and it seems like it would play differently enough from the Dutch Premium to fit. Only concern may be the loss of Torpedoes but that would hardly be the first line to lose its torpedoes at a certain point. Both the American cruiser lines and the Russian CA lines lose their torpedoes so its not without precedence. Alternatively, a buffed Brooklyn class that was actually sold could fit here quite nicely as well with some buffing of certain stats. You don't need a USN design put in here. Tier 9 - This was always going to be a design or fantasy. Still could have been better thought out. Tier 10 - Same as the Tier 9, could have been better. I can understand why the Veinticinco de Mayo class heavy cruisers aren't in the line since it seems like the goal is to keep it a CL line. I would expect them to show up as a premium at some point though.
×