Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Paul_Revere735

  1. Paul_Revere735

    360 degree turret rotation?

    Really do that? No. Any electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic connections between the ship and turret would get twisted and broken. You're asking from a realism standpoint, but the part that isn't real at all about what we are talking about is the turning speed of the ships. A ship doesn't turn around in seconds, as it does in game. It takes minutes. Real ships were not in the back and forth juking shells fights that we have in game.
  2. Paul_Revere735

    Nuclear propulsion question

    It also depends on what you are venting. At least in a commercial plant, in a PWR the steam generators can vent to atmosphere (which was the only "release" outside of their containment at TMI), and BWRs have a pressure relief system which relieves inside their containment as well.
  3. Paul_Revere735

    Nuclear Power: An Incomplete Guide

    You can Google far more in depth diagrams. That is in no way a controlled image. Former Navy nuke/commercial reactor operator here.
  4. Paul_Revere735

    Aircraft change suggestion

    You're comparing ordinance to a consumable. Torps aren't a consumable. Neither are main battery or secondary shells. You're comparing apples to oranges. You can't just "smoke up" as the duration of smoke isn't as long as the plane is there anyways, unless you are playing a high tier US DD, which has DFAA available anyways. "Smoking up" obscures vision of planes unless they are spotted by someone else, so that defeats the purpose. The spotter/fighter last second "pop it before death" is nothing more than a griefing mechanic. Dead ships shouldn't hold vision control over areas of the map for sometimes minutes after death. Edit:. I'm all for ordinance just randomly disappearing, I've been killed far more by a dead ships shells than I have by a dead ships torps.
  5. Paul_Revere735

    Aircraft change suggestion

    Appreciate your constructive conversation. Sadly all you can offer is a youtube search. On par for the WoWs forums. 1/10, would post again.
  6. Paul_Revere735

    Aircraft change suggestion

    So this animated vision bubble, which is the same as hydro or radar, gets to be special because reasons. Ok.
  7. Paul_Revere735

    Aircraft change suggestion

    I just had a game in my Z-23, which happens to have BFT on its captain, shooting down a tier 8 spotter plane. 52 seconds to shoot it down. When the average cruiser at tiers 8-10 has a gun range of 16km, and BBs 18-23km, there is no spot where no one is in a position to shoot you if it is a cap. I play predominantly cruisers myself, but if we are going to go with the whole realism thing in an arcade game, then it would make sense that the aircraft would beeline for the nearest friendly ship, as that is what would really happen, instead of "I'm going to mindlessly circle here because thats what I was meant to do, because I'm nothing more than an animated vision bubble." If your ship is dead, you shouldn't still be influencing the fight. That's my point. Other than ordinance in the air, or a smoke screen that you already laid, there is no instance where you can continue to influence the fight. If you are deploying smoke and sink, it stops deploying.
  8. Paul_Revere735

    Aircraft change suggestion

    Which doesn't fit what happened at Pearl, where crews of battleships that were obviously sinking continued to man AA mounts. So if we are playing the "it's realistic" card, then AA should still fire after a ship sinks, until it goes under.
  9. Paul_Revere735

    Aircraft change suggestion

    Dunno what happened with that quote. It is more relevant to DDs. A smoke screen that persists after death isn't something that is going to continue spotting, or deny the ability to access that area. TRB I'm not sure how that is relevant, unless you mean because of torps already in the water, that is different entirely. While it affects DD moreso, the same could be said for low tier ships that have little/no AA. There is nothing they can do but just deal with it. And the example of "pop your plane right before you die" is the exact reason why it should have a fix. Are you saying you support hydro working as the ship is sinking? That area of the ship could likely still have power after it begins to sink, the hydro could keep working for quite some time. What if a gun mount still had electrical power to fire after the ship dies? Secondaries? You can't make a case for the others to keep working, it is purely "I'm going to do this to grief someone" and that's a pretty lame mentality.
  10. Paul_Revere735

    Aircraft change suggestion

  11. Paul_Revere735

    Aircraft change suggestion

    Yes I know I can shoot it down. Now picture you're in a tier 6 DD with crap AA. Trying to take down a tier 8 plane. That's not going to happen very fast. You're still giving up your concealment dealing with a consumable from a dead ship, you don't have to deal with that from radar or hydro. I'm ok with it staying alive, but remove it's ability to radio your position clear across the map, because radio range/frequency, whatever simulator flavor you want to put on it.
  12. Paul_Revere735

    Aircraft change suggestion

    Spotter/catapult fighters are currently the only consumable that persists after death. Being spotted for 2 minutes after sinking the ship that launched them should act the same way as radar or hydro, when the ship that "cast" the vision action dies, all it's vision abilities should go away. In the current implementation a ship illuminating a several km area with planes that many DDs, especially low tiers, cannot shoot down severely affects the balance in that area of the map. It can prevent capping for a couple minutes if the launching ship was in/around the area in question. Another possible suggestion is to reduce the planes to 1hp when the launching ship goes down. This would allow them to be readily shot down by any DD. Thoughts?
  13. Paul_Revere735

    T-61??? Help.

    Yes and no. You are assuming you are getting penetrations against a DD. If you're over penning, you are only hitting for 330 per shell, which isn't much different than your HE is doing. DDs can angle and make your AP richochet in the time it takes you to reload. Myself, I stick to HE on battleships until I have a fire or 2, then if they are mostly broadside I'll swap to AP on the superstructure. Cruisers I stick to HE unless it's fully broadside and really squishy, as there are no heals so any fire damage you do is going to stick. Against DDs I go to AP if they are mindlessly broadsiding and shooting back, but typically just use HE for the added fire/module damage. It is nice when you get a couple pens with your AP, but with the great penetration and meh pen angles you get with KM AP, it's usually either an over pen or a richochet, in my experience.
  14. Paul_Revere735

    Is AA worth it?

    I'm still trying to figure out how OP had 2 CVs in his game with the Gearing, as they nerfed the # of carriers in higher tier games to 1 CV per team like, 2 years ago?
  15. Paul_Revere735

    T-61??? Help.

    If you can get a flat broadside yes, the AP is very effective. Once they start angling a little, then it's just going to bounce.