Jump to content

crzyhawk

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    17,478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12810
  • Clan

    [ABDA]

Community Reputation

4,679 Superb

About crzyhawk

  • Rank
    Admiral of the Navy
  • Birthday 10/01/1976
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Alexandria, VA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,821 profile views
  1. crzyhawk

    How to make Mouse a grouch...

    You and me both. I'm very bitter over the RN cruiser release still.
  2. A bunch of ships are paying for the sins of Harugumo, Kitakaze, and Worcester.
  3. crzyhawk

    CC Summit 2019: CV Rework Video

    It also disguised the terrible IFHE changes too. They will slide those through while everyone is patting themselves on the back over NTC
  4. They lose the ability to deny that it will work. EDIT to fix poor grammar
  5. So, what's the draw to playing a light cruiser now? You're going to get shredded by other cruisers, you are unable to hurt higher tier battleships, and you can't force an engagement with stealthier, faster destroyers. T7 light cruisers are getting absolutely wrecked with this change. T6 light cruisers are being hurt pretty badly. I can understand making changes. This though? How does the balance team come to the kind of conclusions that this chart and notes represent thinking that it's a good idea? There are so many better ways to do this, such as simply lowering the Alpha and/or fire chance when ships take IFHE.
  6. I could be wrong on the penetration. You are correct that it was not a main belt hit; and it caused flooding to the steering engine room if I recall correctly. Size certainly does matter, but generally speaking 6-inch was adequate for everything that a cruiser is expected to do, and the ROF gives better hit potential. The 8-inch certainly do hit harder when they hit, but scoring those hits is the problem. At the ranges 8-inch seemed to hit reliably with, the 6-inch also hit reliably. The /only/ example I can think of where 8-inch guns made a confirmed difference was the Graf Spee fight, where British 6-inch SAP was unable to score the hit that knocked out the Spee's oil filter system. That's more an indictment of the RN's failure to equip their cruisers with proper AP shells than it is endorsement of the 8-inch round.
  7. Because USN citadels are fine.
  8. If I am reading this correctly, Cleveland could have penetrated Hiei's main belt out to 10 km. She could have crippled Hiei at the ranges the battle was fought. History has shown that the improved shell damage and ballistics are morely irrelevant, given that the guns can't actually HIT anything reliably. http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_United_States.php#6"%2F47_gun%2C_Mk_35_1-8_(1941-43)
  9. There wasn't in the real world either. 203mm cruisers were a mistake. That said, making an entire ship line immune is a death sentence to light cruisers and gun focused destroyers. I'd be fine with it if I was immune to battleship gunfire in return, but they're still going to get to one-shot me and think that it takes some skill to do it. The CL's defined role will be to play CAs instead. Why should CLs have to suffer because WG had to give AA destroyers overpowering anti-surface capability?
  10. making an entire ship type immune though, is not a nerf, that's a gutting
  11. If and I mean IF (because I don't believe a nerf is needed, regardless of battleship tears) you need to do something to IFHE, a better change is to lower the fire chance and decrease the alpha on IFHE shells. Giving a type of ship (battleships) immunity to any guns under 203mm is extremely stupid.
  12. It might look good to a battleship driver, but to a light cruiser captain, this is a death sentence. It completely removes my ability to fight back against a battleship T8 or higher.
  13. crzyhawk

    Average tier you play.

    7
  14. uhhh, being completely unable to hurt battleships that can oneshot me?
  15. this is a fundamentally bad idea.
×