Jump to content

Old_Guard

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    15213
  • Clan

    [POO69]

Community Reputation

29 Neutral

About Old_Guard

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

717 profile views
  1. Old_Guard

    Premium Ship Review - Canarias

    Yea! Little White Mouse is back! Why? Her business. And I am selfish enough not to care, these reviews are so good. I have rage-uninstalled the game at least 4 times since it went live, for as long as 9 months and as short as a day. (You get free ships when you come back if you wait long enough. Not the good ones, but I actually enjoy playing the Krasny Krim from time to time.) The point being, if you like warships it is about the only game in town and you have to figure out a way to like it again. LWM may have gone through a similar process. In any event, Canarias. The ship has 4,136 games on the NA server as of today, with a win rate of 53.83% and 32,783 average damage. Selecting Tier V to VII cruisers (arbitrary reasons), Canarias is currently 5th on win rate although 25th on average damage. (These rankings will probably go down - I am guessing some very capable players that played the ship early on will lose interest and leave her to us more average mid-tier ship jockeys.) In any further event, the server averages are way higher than my 9 games so far, so this kind of review is very helpful. The disparity between win rate and damage indicates to me that Canarias will work best as a support ship - working with other players to win games, rather than carrying a mediocre team. Things like supporting destroyers (or smoke cruisers) in a CAP, protecting battleships from destroyers and other cruisers; that sort of thing.
  2. Old_Guard

    DevBlog 310 - Closed Test 0.11.4, New Ships

    Objectively you make good points: The gap between Tier VII and VIII, particularly regarding armor, is the widest in the game. Subjectively, my experience is different. Being focused down by a Tier X carrier, or being deleted in one salvo by a Russian battleship or heavy cruiser from across the map, will pretty much wreck my attitude toward the game for the day and send me back to Tier VII. I will still take out the Massachusetts and Bismarck without worrying too much about matchmaking. (And most other Tier VIII battleships in my inventory.) Cruisers are a different matter for me. Baltimore and Admiral Hipper used to be my favorite cruisers. But I would rather be in a Yorck in a Tier IX game than a Hipper in a Tier X game. (New Orleans is admittedly a struggle.) Baltimore has decent guns and armor but the short range is a serious problem. What happens, happens. Changing your play style when up-tiered to a more cautious and defensive approach will help you survive but will limit your impact. (The bamboo-and-rice-paper Pan-Asian cruisers are good trainers.
  3. Old_Guard

    DevBlog 310 - Closed Test 0.11.4, New Ships

    New Faroe Islands map: Glad to see this moving on in development, and I would like more. I must admit this is not as much of an issue for me as it used to be. "Hotspot" may come up a number of times in a row, but with the variety of ships and ship classes it is effectively a different map every time.
  4. Old_Guard

    DevBlog 310 - Closed Test 0.11.4, New Ships

    "Superships" and the elusive new Tier XI. . . Playing Tier VIII cruisers has been a problem for me for some time because of the proliferation of (in my opinion) unrealistic and over-powered Tier X battleships, including more recently the Superships. KMS Hipper and USS Baltimore were among my favorite ships, but have been badly power-crept because of the proliferation of higher-caliber and more accurate Tier X battleship guns. (I'll leave aircraft carriers and submarines out of my discussion.) I see three possible solutions, and all have complications: Address power creep, particularly in the older lines. Baltimore with Hipper's main battery range and Tallinn's radar range could still be relevant in a Tier X and Supership battle. However, I understand that the devs have to concentrate on new lines/new ships to keep a reasonable amount of income flowing in. My buying signal flags from time to time for my Baltimore is not going to underwrite much development/maintenance infrastructure. Protective matchmaking. One up and two down for Tier VIII. This would solve my issue, but I do not know whether we have enough players on the smaller servers (such as NA) to support it. Longer waits would be OK with me - still probably nothing like what we had in Closed Beta and the early days of the game. A real Tier XI. Probably the best solution. I would add some of the more powerful ships presently at Tier X into it. (I offer no candidates - not much interested in these ships.) What if none of this happens? Not a deal-breaker for me. I have uninstalled the game a number of times in the past in the middle of a temper tantrum, but I have learned I can always find a way to enjoy the game. There are a lot more experienced players at the mid-tiers than there used to be - in fact, I believe "seal clubbing" has died out as an art form. (Or maybe just moved to aircraft carriers and submarines.) Wargaming does not make as much money from me now that my focus has moved down from Tier VIII to Tier VII, but the present trend toward unrealistic and over-powered ships at higher tiers may be making them more money overall.
  5. Old_Guard

    where's the hydro?

    Amen. brother. I have been avoiding Tier 8 and above because of Tier 10 and "Supership" foolishness, but am now taking it out because of the hydrophones. (And actual armor, compared with the battlecruiser line.) Historically Bismarck did have a rather good hydrophone, rare in battleships but consider they did not expect to have destroyers escorting. Apparently Japanese cruisers had hydrophones also - documentation is scarce. Apparently IJN Ashigura (Myoko class) smashed hers on a reef. And Wikipedia lists depth charges under IJN Takao's armament. But - in the present state of the game "historical accuracy" has left the building and is not coming back. So, sure: hydro on all classes of ships whether they had it or not. And - if the sub sends an active sonar ping we surface types should at least get a precise bearing on the sub, and an estimate range based on the strength. Two pings should give us a fairly precise location based on triangulation and strength of the ping. But that would make "hydro" more historically accurate, so a non-starter.
  6. Old_Guard

    Venting My Submarine Frustrations

    Why don't they just initiate the tech tree lines? No clue. I could give a reason I might do that, but I am not them. Submarines are more difficult to play. Give time for the novelty to wear off for those who just can't develop the skills (or can't be bothered when they have a full Nintendo-style arcade game like aircraft carriers to fall back on). It is a class, like carriers, where in the hands of a skillful player many surface ships have no effective counter. Particularly when up-tiered. Your Tier 6 short-range, 3 depth charge, long cool-down flight does damn-all to a skillfully-played Tier 8 sub. Even when you have a recent-sighting spotting ghost to aim at on the minimap.
  7. Old_Guard

    PTS 0.11.2 pt.3 - Bug Reports

    They can speak for themselves (but almost never do, for some reason). In general Wargaming seems to take liberties with the equipment, performance, etc. of the real ships their models are based on. At least part of this is the sacred cow, "balance." Sometimes it may be ignorance. For example, the U.S. 3"/50 was a "flak" gun but does not shoot airburst AA in WoWS. For the Balao, who knows? The class continued in service after WW2 and many were upgraded in various forms. As there submerged endurance increased, I imagine the weight and drag of the deck gun would lead to its removal. One of the class, USS Clamagore (SS-343), has a photo on line with the deck gun removed. (https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/USS_Clamagore_(SS-343)) However, it does not have the small fitting on the fore deck which could be an active or passive sonar. I noticed U-190 (Tier VIII) also seems to have had her deck gun removed, and I don't see a rationale for that. On the test server some of the deck guns are set up as functional "secondary armament". This may be just for testing purposes - to see how the USS Salmon does with her 102 mm deck gun (fictional, real ship had a 3"/50) compared with the U-190 which has had her 105 mm deck gun removed.
  8. Old_Guard

    PTS 0.11.2 pt.3 - Bug Reports

    Yup - it's a problem. On my last game I got to obliterate an "AFK" American light cruiser (Dallas, I think). He had a bad game, and is rewarded for it by going pink for three games. We need a new term: "AFG" is my nomination. Away from Game do to server crash. At least suspend the AFK penalty until you sort out your servers.
  9. Old_Guard

    PTS 0.11.2 pt.3 - Bug Reports

    A common theme, it seems. . . This time it crashed on the final game screen without loading the Battle Results. . . A good thing, since I was serving out my ISP's "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" for tripping me out at the start of a game. (Not Wargaming's fault, but: How about you suspend "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" for "quitting" a game until you get these &^%$# servers sorted out?) I am seeing more and more pink players, and I suspect many of them are victims of game crashes. Same routine. I tried a little harder to get the Task Manager up. I will shift to "windowed" so I can try the Task Manager to stop and start the game rather than a complete reboot, the next time it happens. And it will happen - submarines are too complex for the servers. We had 4 out of 8 a side on this game, and it seems likely that the servers cannot handle the complex movement/weapons/sensors of these submarines.
  10. Old_Guard

    PTS 0.11.2 pt.3 - Bug Reports

    (Just got to say how proud I am as a retired Lieutenant-Commander to have made it to "Petty Officer" in five or so years of this game. Only took one year in real life, three to Petty Officer First Class.)
  11. Old_Guard

    PTS 0.11.2 pt.3 - Bug Reports

    Sierra Bravo not available in the Test Server Armory. The screenshot shows that the Sierra Bravo signal is at least theoretically available on the test server, individual ship Exterior/Signals screen. But it is not supplied with the initial inventory and is not available in the Test Server Armory. Only mildly annoying, but hydro plays a big part in this test round and it would nice to be able to test the 10% time increase the signal provides.
  12. Old_Guard

    PTS 0.11.2 pt.3 - Bug Reports

    Game crash froze the game at the start screen, about the time I hit the "Start Battle" button. Since I run full screen (rather than windowed) I could not attempt to close/re-start the game from the Task Manager, so had to force a re-boot. With an older system including a mechanical hard drive, this took a bit of time. Second screenshot shows the start screen when I got back into the game. Fortunately the Parseval player was pretty good - still lost, but ended up third or so from the top on the losing team. This happens occasionally on the live (NA) server also, most recently about a week ago. I imagine this kind of glitch is caught by the server logs. . .
  13. Old_Guard

    Compensation for technical issues in 0.11.1

    "fixed last week with the release of patch 0.11.1.1." Not so much: Hard crash yesterday (3/5) at the start of a game required a forced reboot. Since I still have a mechanical hard drive (my bad) it took about 6 minutes to get back into the game.
  14. Old_Guard

    Developer Bulletin for Update 0.10.10

    Yet-More-Gimmicks Department: The Yamagiri and "Alternative" torpedoes: Although not a big fan of gimmicks, I am actually in favor of this (with reservations, below). The Japanese Type 93 "Long Lance" could be set for a variety of speed/range combinations, and perhaps other WW2-era torpedoes as well. I think having an adjustment rather than alternative torpedoes would be better, but I recognize this would probably require excessive coding. Burst Fire (Condé, Zorkiy, and Annapolis): It seems like they borrowed clip loading from World of Tanks. I don't know about clip loading, but automatic loading was becoming a thing late in WW2 for U.S. dual-purpose guns, with automatic loading for the 3'"/50 cal. it was set to replace the 5"/38 cal. for AA work. My issue is two forms of power creep: If one destroyer is introduced with in-game torpedo choices, all of them ought to get it. At a minimum, all torpedo models with settings for range/speed ought to get the capability. The other power-creep issue is the mixing of Cold War-era ships with WW2-era ships. The U.S. destroyer line is prime example, all of the upper tiers having the excellent 5"/38 caliber gun. But they face more modern ships with the faster-firing, high velocity guns being developed in the late 1940's into the 1950's. The 5"/54 caliber gun would be more competitive, but most of the actual ships only had a single mount. (And, missiles, of course.)
  15. Old_Guard

    German Battleships in the Armory

    OK, now I know what happens. You get 1,300,000 in BongoBucks and another 3-point captain. The 1.3 mil. I can use, getting low on operational signal flags. . . The 3-point captain? I'll put him in charge of the torpedo nets at Bremerhaven and he can live out the war in relative tranquility. And it won't be hard to get the tokens to finally find out exactly what Der Flinger actually flings. (Decent AP pen would be nice but it is Tier V I don't hold out much hope.)
×