Jump to content

b101uk

Members
  • Content Сount

    1,195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

Community Reputation

332 Excellent

About b101uk

  • Rank
    Ensign
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,003 profile views
  1. b101uk

    Conqueror and Monarch changes.

    I am sorry but you are somewhat deluded there. British BB AP may and HE may carry a larger bursting charge (by explosive power relative to TNT vs. weight if your going to compare like for like) than other nations on average, BUT the relative explosive power of British AP falls drastically short of other nations HE/HC, to the point the fire chance and explosive effect you see in-game couldn't possibly support your delusion. i.e. there is just not enough explosive power in the bursting charge of British AP on average to meet the same relative explosive power of other nations HE/HC on average regardless of fuse setting. and if what you were saying was true that in-game then RN quasi "HE" shell would require a completely different formula to other nations who carried more HE shells as part of their standard loadout and didn't have at the time in-breach fuse setters. that said going back to the removal of HE from Conqueror, then HE button then could be used to toggle change the fuse timings of the AP shell between a tight timing better for soft thing and a loser timing for harder things, with a token ~7.5sec or so "setting" time which could be perturbed further with the expert loader skill.
  2. b101uk

    Conqueror and Monarch changes.

    I am more than aware of this, given I have commented on the above multiple time on this forum including the relative bursting charge mass and explosive relative power vs the likes of explosive D used by the USN when HE was being hotly debated with the release of RN BB's. so you have told me nothing I haven't taken intro account, given I have to also take into account the deficiencies WG has for AP vs soft targets because reasons of simplification.
  3. b101uk

    Conqueror and Monarch changes.

    I wasn't being sarcastic, and I play Conqueror lots, its damage amount in stats are inflated by fire damage, which is low quality damage, and the reality was RN BB carried very little in the way of HE for their main guns as part of their standard loadout. e.g. main guns, standard loadout, none shore bombardment duties: KGV et al mid/end of WW2 carried just 5 HE shells per main gun, the other 95 shells per gun were AP. QE/WS by mid/end of WW2 had 5 HE shells per main gun, the other 95 shells per gun were AP. Vanguard carried 95 AP, 5HE and 9 practice round per gun, so carried more inert practice rounds than HE shells! the above is indicative of RN WW2 thinking which should be applied.
  4. b101uk

    Conqueror and Monarch changes.

    another alternative, would be to remove HE, as RN BB generally carried little in the way of HE for the main guns unless they were going out on shore bombardment duties. as IMO Conqueror et al damage is rather inflated in their stats by low quality fire damage that can be healed on other BB and come CL/CA, rather than it being mostly made of higher quality AP damage. after all they could always then give the secondary's (HE) a buff to help where AP is a bit deficient, and it would help draw them into the fight more.
  5. b101uk

    Conqueror and Monarch changes.

    I wander when they are going to raise the upper tier US BB citadels, after all, if the boiler room roof is now going to be used as being indicative of citadel height along its full length of Conqueror citadel, then it is more than good enough to apply that same mantra to ALL BB and change ALL BB at once. as for the citadel extending to the shell plating beneath the belt, that is not how torpedo protection works.
  6. b101uk

    Having the option not to play if cv's are in game ??

    looks just like a normal graph of players numbers for many MP games and many SP games, and shows NOTHING untoward, you can see summer troughs winter peaks, may and June 2019 appears to have no meaningful difference to May and June 2018. if I look at the historic weather in Moscow for Feb/March 2018 vs. Feb/March 2019, it was notable colder and more miserable weather for that period in 2018 than for the same period in 2019, the same is true if I look at the same periods in Russian cities further east, and we a not talking 1C or 2C difference but 10C difference for sustained periods, which in its self would go some way to explain why Feb/March 2018 looks a bit different to Feb/March 2019.
  7. WG have the right to change their mind about their game, they after all are a business in the business of making money from the generally hard route of a free to play game.
  8. it could just be that her camo artwork is not done, so she has a token como on with the expectant camo stats as a stand-in until its done?
  9. b101uk

    Dear WG: coop bots and aerial torpedoes

    cant say I have noticed this problem, unlike the lengths bot ships will go to avoid ship launched torps
  10. over the last 3 days and 9 more resources crates, 2 of them have been all coal
  11. funny thing is, now some people have got into CV again or are doing so for the first time, if they were to revert back to the old RTS play and everything as was for a short term test, you would still get a lot of people giving it a try who now have CV's, and then people would be screaming to have the rework CV back, because the CV population would be higher than pre-rework and it would remind the anti CV brigade the damage CV once wrought.
  12. not every PvP game has "stat tracking", so "every" is totally the wrong word, IF you were trying to give an honest answer/opinion.
  13. that is assuming you were referring to main guns, rather than secondary guns.
  14. you need to look again at navweapons, as some of the numbers you are quoting are pure fantasy PER GUN and are closer to or even exceed PER TURRET values. e.g. Alaska ~160 per gun Iowa et al ~ 120 to 130 NC/ND ~148
×