Jump to content

Jakob_Knight

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    1,364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5853
  • Clan

    [BWC]

Community Reputation

645 Excellent

1 Follower

About Jakob_Knight

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

593 profile views
  1. Personally, I find many tech line ships that are superior to Premium ships. That's not 100 percent of them, of course, anymore than 100 percent of Premium ships are superior to tech line ships (hello Marblehead ), but simply an observation. A person who doesn't pay to obtain a Premium ship is not incapable of getting ships of equal power or more, depending on nationality. Even then, the skill of the player will matter far more than what any Premium ship can provide in determining their success or failures. The real issue I see with altering Premium ships is that players have put out actual money to obtain said ships based on their capabilities at time of purchase. That's something that, if changed, means changing the conditions of sale after the sale has been agreed to. The Błyskawica comes to mind as a Premium ship that included as part of its sales pitch the ability to invisifire, and when that was removed, the ship became something owners felt they had been cheated on (or perhaps I was the only one who felt the ship I had obtained was rendered almost pointless after the sale). Adding value to an item sold is seen as beneficial to the person purchasing an item and a sign of good will by the seller. Removing value from an item sold is seen as detrimental to the person purchasing the item, and a sign of bad intent by the seller. Mind you, I wouldn't be against 'balancing' Premium ships, as long as they retained the defining characteristics that were part of their sales in the first place. Also, if that 'balancing' meant bringing underperforming ships up as well as overperforming ships down. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the state of Blyskawica and Marblehead, that simply isn't what WG means by 'balancing'. So, if I had to choose between leaving Premiums alone and risk some games being altered by their capabilities (as with tech tree ships), or trusting WG to do any balancing correctly, I'm afraid I have to err on the side of leaving things alone. WG has not proven that they can balance Premiums with an even hand across the board yet, so I can't see that would be what I would want them doing when the alternative of leaving things alone and functional is an option. My two cents.
  2. Jakob_Knight

    why DD is so op in wows making Battleship useless

    “If you load a mud foot down with a lot of gadgets that he has to watch, somebody a lot more simply equipped—say with a stone ax—will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a vernier.” ― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
  3. Jakob_Knight

    why DD is so op in wows making Battleship useless

    The issue is that WG has stated in the past and through their actions that this is -precisely- the way they want DDs to attack. They purposely nerfed the ability of DDs to attack from range with torpedoes to force closer engagement ranges and correct what they saw as 'DDs are surviving too much'. A close-range or point blank attack is what WG -wants- to have happen in a DD/BB engagement, so they can't exactly work against it without justifiably being shown as hypocrites. On the topic itself, I believe at least half of the problem is that BB players don't understand that they are playing -BATTLESHIPS-, and the resources those ships bring. They don't think about their ability to take damage, only how to avoid it (Destroyers). They don't think about the massed firepower of their secondaries added to their main guns, but try to stay as far away as possible and still shoot the enemy (Cruisers). They don't think about leading their forces and crashing through the enemy line to cause as much destruction and disruption to the enemy plans, they think how much they need the other ships to be between them and the enemy (Carriers). A Battleship is a force the enemy can't ignore, that can cause great damage and force the issue with the enemy, but only if the Captain in charge of her is of the mindset to use her to her full potential. A BB can kill any DD one-on-one as long as it is willing to take damage and not flinch. The BB can heal up, the BB can take the damage, and the BB can close the map on the DD. But it takes a Captain who is willing to take the hit to deliver one. I know how DDs and BBs interact....I play both. And yes, a competent DD player will likely sink a BB one-on-one (that's their role, after all), but it is far from a certainty, and the BB in that situation has the option to force the DD into a kill or be killed situation. It is hardly a guarantee that the DD wins, despite what many players think. The only time the DD will be guaranteed the win is if the BB gives up the fight, is taken out by the first attack (because they didn't correctly predict the position of the DD and got caught flat-footed), or the BB chooses the area of engagement poorly. In all other situations, the BB has a fighting chance. Finally, don't be afraid to sacrifice your BB to achieve losses on the enemy team. If you are going down, make sure you take one or more of the enemy with you. If you see a chance to kill an enemy of equal or greater value than yourself, don't hesitate because it might cost you your own ship. This isn't a game about protecting yourself, but about getting the win for the team. That doesn't mean be suicidal, or throw your ship into a situation where you know you deserve to die, but weighing the options and not being afraid to take hits to hurt the enemy more. That's my advice to BB players. Take it or leave it.
  4. Jakob_Knight

    What is that? What the heck is that?!

    Well, since this is the format you wish to take... Point One: Carpet bombing and saturation attack to overwhelm its defenses are, in fact and effect, the same thing. If you think there is any actual difference in the area struck by 50 deadfall dropped 500 kiloton nuclear devices and 50 cruise missile 500 kiloton nuclear devices, I am afraid you simply don't understand what you are talking about. Both will end with the same effect and the same amount of secondary damage effects. The only difference is how many warheads go off, and after the first one, it's a rather moot point to the target. And, as a final note, I do not play with words, though you seem to do so well enough. Point Two: The scenario you described has -always- been a concern on the military leadership in the U.S. for the last sixty years. It hasn't happened because the scenarios where it can happen only occur in conjunction with the start of global war. There is simply no objective except that which would be served by such an attack, as all other military concerns happen near coastlines and strategic land and sea areas. This is why the Navy developed littoral combat ships...the concerns and actions of naval vessels happen in and around land masses in the modern world, and that is also where any enemy wants to control. I would also note that despite the tensions in the last sixty years, no nation has deployed nuclear weapons in naval engagements, even when it was a shooting war. Perhaps you might ask yourself why. Point Three: That no one wants unrestricted warfare is -why- it hasn't happened. There is this thing called 'deterrence', which is the primary role of nuclear arms in any military force not engaged in diverting an asteroid from hitting the planet. Use of nuclear weapons in any capacity triggers unrestricted warfare because it breaks the Rules of Warfare that permit restricted warfare. Once a nuclear weapon has been deployed, there are no longer any grounds for either side to hold back using them, and the war becomes a matter of how much radioactive rubble is left across the planet. Point Four: There is no such thing as 'Tactical Nuclear Weapons'. Such wordplay is oxymoronic, and there is no such distinction in international law between a 'Tactical' and a 'Strategic' nuclear weapon. The use of any nuclear device is considered strategic, and conducted as such by the nations involved. No commander has the right to deploy nuclear weapons on their own authority, which is a requirement of any tactical arm. Instead, all nations know that any use of a nuclear device will and is considered an act of the nation using it, not the unit deploying it. You claim other nations such as Russia and China are not playing by the playbook on nuclear weapons use. Yet, they are. Russia has put into place their own countermeasures for nuclear weapons use, and China has their own directives in place on the subject. Why? Because the playbook is named 'National Survival'. Any nation that uses a nuclear weapon commits an act that will be national suicide, and they know it. Nations like North Korea may not care, but they know it. That's the playbook of mutual assured destruction that all nuclear nations play when they become powers known to possess such weapons. Your claims about the environmental effects of nuclear test devices on testing ranges in controlled environments being the same as the effect of a battlefield nuclear deployment against assets with their own nuclear capabilities are, quite frankly, hard to believe. If you clearly understood the issue, you would never say such a thing. The result of even a limited nuclear exchange between deployed assets would make even the largest nuclear test look tame by comparison. And let us not forget we are talking about nuclear weapons being used by and against assets at sea against other assets at sea who also have their own nuclear weapons to throw back, which will trigger nuclear weapons use by the nation against the using nation (a little fact for you: warships are considered extensions of the nations that they are commissioned to, which is why a naval vessel can grant asylum to those who are aboard it). Point Five: When I served in the Navy, during the Cold War, under exactly the conditions you want to describe, and facing the scenario you are putting forth, not as a fictional 'what if' that you obviously have gotten from some Tom Clancy novel, but as a cold hard reality, there was a great requirement to inform the crews of naval vessels about the situations they faced. This was because they were the ones who were going into the situations and the ones who might have to conduct themselves in accordance with the orders put into place by Command. Above all, because they were the ones the nation was entrusting the fate of the nation in. So, I think we will simply have to respectfully agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am to mine. From your words, I believe we simply have different experiences in different branches of Service, and our outlooks reflect that. I respect you for your service, and I hope you will extend the same in return. Let us end this here, and push on to other things.
  5. Jakob_Knight

    Are the DD Mains' Whining Days Now Over?

    Hmmm...isn't this thread a complaint about DD players complaining about CVs after BBs complained about DDs after CAs complained about BBs after CVs complained about everyone else? Yeah.
  6. Jakob_Knight

    What is that? What the heck is that?!

    Well, it really wouldn't accomplish anything. If a nation has no intention of using military action to defend a claim to a part of the sea, then it will simply not take offensive action with or without such a ship being in place. If a nation has the intent to use military action to enforce its claim to a part of the sea, it won't matter to it if the target can fire back or not. If it's a military vessel, it will be deemed a valid target and either boarded or sunk, and the same claims will be made if the vessel was capable of attack (and didn't) or not capable of attack (and didn't). If the ship sits in waters and interdicts shipping by being in the way of other ships, then it will constitute a navigational hazard and, if it does not heel to when directed to stop such activity, can be acted against legally. Basically, all this ship would do is either resist 'accidents' better than a normal warship (but not stop them), or end up with the same effect on the opposition and the world that an armed warship of the country that did not fire first would. And that doesn't even address the effect of building such a ship would have (naval analysts aren't as stupid as the media often portrays them to be...they can figure out a vessel's purpose pretty quickly and tell the people upstairs what the intent of the nation building it may be). While I can see such a ship being built for purposes such as hostile condition rescue (though any bad sea conditions would probably be worse for an over-tonned vessel like this) or as a command and control ship, I don't see anyone building it simply as an antagonist asset. Warships are too expensive to build for a single purpose (the lesson of the Glomar Explorer about single-mission ships is useful to observe), and constructing a ship that is -designed- to cause diplomatic problems for the government building it probably would have a very tough time getting approved by that government. Of course, this is all my opinion, and we all know that those in charge of military development projects and policy directives can get some pretty odd ideas through at times.
  7. Jakob_Knight

    What is that? What the heck is that?!

    I always thought that there was never a case where a nation could defend a first strike with nuclear weapons. Then the movie 'Crimson Tide' came out, and suddenly I saw a situation that defined one. The conflict between the Captain and the Executive Officer in that movie was, I am sure, the crux of a nightmare just about every commander of a nuclear-capable naval vessel has. And, as the naval board in the movie concludes "You were both right. And, you were both wrong".
  8. Jakob_Knight

    What is that? What the heck is that?!

    The only real problem with having a ship with no offensive capability is that the ship also has no ability to influence the actions of another naval force. Basically, you've made a very expensive and very formidable navigation buoy. If another nation's naval forces do something that the ship's nation disagrees with, all it could do is watch, and the other side would know that. Part of power projection is the use of power. That power can be for ill (conquest) but also for the good (defending others and laws). Removing the ability to use that power altogether means removing the ability to make the entity that is acting contrary to your national interests rethink its actions and consider alternatives. Such a ship would simply be ignored by the offending nation and steered around...unless it acted to become a navigation hazard, which would put the offending nation in the right to either force it off or sink it under international law. It would be nice if we didn't need ships with the ability to use force on other ships, but we have a Navy precisely because that world doesn't exist yet.
  9. Jakob_Knight

    What is that? What the heck is that?!

    I believe you said.... Ergo, flood an area with nuclear armed weapons hoping one will get your target. That is the principle behind carpet bombing...drop ordinance in such quantity and onto a target area that you'll hit the target by virtue of weight of ordinance rather than aim. And, as I think I rather pointed out, there is no such thing as using nuclear weapons 'in a controlled manner'. The very use of a nuclear weapon will produce results which cannot be controlled environmentally, militarily, or politically. And no, the point of warfare is -NOT- to annihilate opposing military forces by any way...that is a typical misconception of many who have never served. The point of warfare, and the point of the training all military personnel receive before they even step foot outside the training academies, is to eliminate the opponent's -ability- to prevent the completion of the mission in a manner consistent with things called 'Rules of Engagement' (that dictate what an on-scene commander or military member may or may not do in the prosecution of their duties) and 'Rules of Warfare' (that govern what can and cannot be used by armed forces in pursuit of their missions). Violation of these rules results in unrestricted warfare, something no military organization wants to see in a nuclear era, and usually the hallmark of those combatants who lack any responsibility or accountability to a nation. The reason for not wanting unrestricted warfare is because the conflict goes from one with objectives and political goals to one where the only outcome is one or the other side (or both in the case of nuclear, chemical, or biological unrestricted warfare) being no longer in existence...and we are not talking military forces here, but the nation, including all the people the military has sworn to defend. I'm afraid you simply do not understand the realities of modern naval warfare, nor the purpose behind regular military forces or the conditions by which they exist and operate.
  10. Jakob_Knight

    What is that? What the heck is that?!

    Unfortunately, this kind of ignorance used to drive a lot of military doctrine. It assumes nuclear weapons are just 'bigger bombs', and the idea of carpet bombing nuclear payloads is just as valid a way to knock out roads and clear wooded areas. The simple fact is that the use of nuclear weapons is not an option in modern warfare. Any force that used one would come under immediate retaliation in kind, leading to massive losses to not only the engaged nations but a large number of others as the collateral damage from radioactive fallout drifted hundreds of kilometers in unpredictable directions (not to mention any that went off target and hit something else). Not only that, but the very real threat of triggering escalation to full strategic nuclear exchange would at the very least cause the rest of the world to immediately line up to eliminate the using party as a threat. This is why no nation has used nuclear weapons in any conflict since the Second World War (and even -that- is still under debate). And that doesn't even bring up the issue that Soviet subs armed with nuclear torpedoes faced. That the using unit would almost certainly be caught in it's own blast if it were close enough to score a hit on an evading enemy force. The point of warfare now is how effective you can project force in a controlled manner with non-nuclear (actually, non-WMB) weapons. Such weapons do not usually leave dangerous side-effects to your own forces moving into the area, can often achieve the objective with lower collateral damage, and won't trigger a massive response from countries who believe the kid gloves are now off and it's time to utterly wipe out a threat to every nation on the planet. In this form of 'limited warfare', the super carriers and battleships -do- have a place, as they can do jobs no other unit can. However, the resources that would be used to construct a new battleship would be massive (the infrastructure to make the kind of armored hulls and gunnery isn't presently there as it was during the years when big gun ships were the norm). The question naval command organizations have to answer every time this comes up is if a number of less-capable ships would be better for their mission than one battleship, and for the moment, that answer is that they are. Especially since the rule of warfare technology is that as soon as a new thing is introduced by one force, the technology to defeat it becomes a high priority for other forces that might face it. It is true that weapons currently in use would have a difficult time with a battleship (and always will), but it is just as true that there are weapons that could be developed to counter them if it were seen as worthwhile to do so (why develop a two-stage, depleted uranium piercer torpedo if you don't have a target to use it on?). That isn't to say a battleship would not be a valuable asset in modern naval warfare. Not just in shore bombardment and support of landing operations, but in force projection and the kind of spearhead operations against irregular warfare situations described in the article. It would be a very important asset in these missions, and as a fleet command unit. However, there are missions it would not be good at, as with any warship, and you would have to use it properly to make the resources put into making it and keeping it running worthwhile. That is what made the USN retire (but not scrap) their BBs. Not that they didn't have a place in modern warfare, but that they were simply becoming too much work to keep operational all the time. So, is there a place for a battleship in modern warfare? Certainly. Is it worth it for any Navy to make one? Hard to say. Will any Navy build something like a BB if they decide the need is there for it in their national interests? Very likely...that's in their mandate. Do any of us know if any national mandates exist that would make a Navy do so? Very unlikely and if anyone did, this would be the one of the worst places to divulge such sensitive information. My two cents.
  11. Jakob_Knight

    Developer Bulletin 0.8.2

    I think you are the victim of bad translation on the part of WG. Their wording seems to indicate that RDF will no longer detect aircraft, but the explanation and the previous statements in other posts indicate what WG most likely meant to say is that RDF will no longer be usable -by- aircraft. So, in fact, they are -adding- to the ability of DDs to evade detection by aircraft by taking away one means aircraft could use to home in on them, not taking more of the DD's ability to avoid detection away..
  12. Jakob_Knight

    Update 0.8.1.1

    Actually, the real problem for DDs is that the game was changed to account for the lack of CVs by a number of changes against DDs to allow the game to be balanced without the CVs present. However, with the new gameplay and the return of CVs to many if not most matches, the measures put in place (Radar, Torpedo Spotting distance increases, ect) to counter DD play were not removed, resulting in a marked imbalance against DDs other ship types did not face (Cruisers remained effective against the CVs, and BBs actually got buffed in their AAA effectiveness by a large degree to allow them to protect themselves without relying on other ships, and CVs themselves were rendered almost immune to attack by another CV ). In the game as it was originally, the DDs were countered by CVs, and rather hard, but there was no radar and their torpedoes were harder to detect, allowing for gameplay that drew in many players at the time. The DDs and other ships -did- stay together precisely because the CVs could do what they do now. The problem is that the gameplay up till now has had the DDs forced into the CVs job of scouting, with other ships relying on the DDs to range ahead and spot targets. They game was changed to this mission for them. Now, with a return to the previous environment with the CVs back in the game, many players still expect the DDs to do the same jobs, even when they should know the game has changed. As for the 'DD is OP against CC and BB', I would ask why so many DDs die in almost every battle if that were so? I often take my BBs against DDs at every range, and beat them. Clearly, they are not OP, but simply doing their jobs, as BBs do against Cruisers, and Cruisers (ideally) do against CVs. That's the way the game is set up. If you don't like it, then we'll have to strip BBs of their ability to kill Cruisers easily, kill Cruisers ability to severely take out aircraft, and DDs ability to make BBs do anything but farm damage (note that we'd also have to buff DDs and Cruisers to BB levels of survivability, of course). Everyone has their opinion, but I find all too often, people claiming an entire ship type that have been in the game for a very, very long time as they are without eclipsing other classes as OP very much a case of not looking at the game as a whole, but only the class they want to be dominant. At the moment, CVs need work, but I think it's mainly in the MM department. They are in a very good place in terms of damage vrs support abilities, and messing with that is likely to cause more imbalance than it will solve. Limiting the CVs to a + - 1 Tier MM would solve most if not all of the CV issues (except for those involved with CV players wanting their ship type to dominate the game....same problem with any other class players who only see their own side of the game...and you'll never satisfy those without pushing the other players out of their ships).
  13. Jakob_Knight

    Update 0.8.1.1

    It's quite frankly amazing to see how a person can say so much that is completely wrong. Almost the entirety of what you have said above is untrue, and I have to believe you know it. Therefore, since you have also, for a third time, accused me of lying without any actual proof or logic that works except in your warped mind (that cannot even see that it was you who claimed DDs can attack with the same immunity to attack that CVs have, not I), I see no point in giving you further consideration or comment. Attempting to reason with those who don't use reasoning remains one of the most pointless and futile uses of time in this world. You may continue to post to your heart's content (as that is all you actually understand), but there is nothing you can contribute to either this discussion or the game. May you find other pursuits that let you enjoy life more than you obviously are capable of here. Good day.
  14. Jakob_Knight

    Update 0.8.1.1

    Oh, I agree the MM issue is one of the most important issues CVs face right now. I've called it out on several of my previous posts. However, the 'Stealth AAA' issue has been a very vocal and recent issue a good number of CV players have put forth as something they wanted very greatly to have changed. WG has done so. To then say that 'None of this (the patch) fixes the issues plaguing the CVs right now' is why I said that there was zero comprehension in the statement, since it is quite obvious that there was a part (and one rather upfront and displayed) that did fix an issue plaguing CVs right now. You may look up the word 'None' if you wish to see if it includes a quantity greater than zero.
  15. Jakob_Knight

    Update 0.8.1.1

    Hmmm....so, your claim is that DDs can attack with the same hit rate as a CV without risking themselves at all to counter-fire. That's a rather clueless statement that anyone who has played them knows is untrue. You claim BBs are able to attack with no risk to themselves in the same way 'if they choose'. Please, tell me how they are not subject to counter-fire from the enemy when they do this, because I have never heard any BB commander who has made such a claim (and having run BBs myself, I know how often I come under return fire when I do shoot at the enemy). Please, illustrate how your statements are not the clueless ones. And, of course, you accuse me of lying. That is a rather straight forwards claim, and I call upon you to clearly prove I have, in any way, said what I do not believe is true. If not, then you, sir, need to think about apologizing or simply admitting that you are dropping comments without thought, reason, or proof. I'll wait. However, if you don't feel like actually doing that, I'll understand. Mainly because of the rest of your utterly false statements ("all nine of them will self-destruct"...I must have missed where weapons in this game have a chance to misfire and explode when the trigger is pulled). I'd say you should know better given the number of battles you have fought, but we really can't tell if you -have- fought any, can we? I don't want any unit to be dominant in the game, since I play them all. I have a vested interest in making sure the game is playable for all ship types, as I hardly want to see any of the ships I've spent years obtaining become wasted port queens, or the game dissolve to the point that it dies completely. However, since you, for the second time, accuse me of lying without any proof of the allegation, and ample evidence that it is yourself who has a lack of knowledge and the fortitude to stand in the light, I will simply assume you speak from nothing more than a desire to incite drama and demonstrate how little you actually know of what you speak. Mission accomplished. I wish you well on your future posts. Perhaps they will improve once you actually have something worth listening to.
×