Jump to content

mofton

Members
  • Content count

    6,356
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9446
  • Clan

    [SYN]

Community Reputation

1,783 Superb

About mofton

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Insignia
    [SYN]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Seattle

Recent Profile Visitors

2,179 profile views
  1. If it was solely the learning curve then the Icarus-Lightning would be getting similarly negative press as Acasta, but they're not. Icarus is getting a 'meh' response, Jervis is solid if unexceptional, Lightning has some nice features people like. Acasta has nothing. I've already seen three nicknames - Acantsta, Acastastrophe and Acsthma which reflect poorly. There will inevitably be a counter learning curve as well, while people are unused to playing them people are unused to playing against them, they'll learn to adjust their aim. I've already had experiences with carriers where they seem to hound me in particular knowing it will only cost them 40s instead of 57-115s of loitering to outlast my smoke.
  2. How so? The Mk. IX as you list has a minimum range of 9,600m while Acasta gets 6,000m. All in-game torpedoes have their speed increased by a formula which roughly works out as +20kt. The Mk. IX** variant is that seen in game on the higher tier ships and is a good weapon doing 62kt to 10km. Warhead equates through a formula to in-game damage and the Mk. IX does far better than Acasta's torpedoes which are far from hard hitting. The Acasta in-game is graced with the Mk. V, an older torpedo with the stats fiddled slightly. It's poor in range, speed and hitting power. Reload mechanics also hurt it as larger numbers of launchers with fewer tubes reload quicker than fewer launchers with more tubes.
  3. They're hard to generalize - the top tiers look remarkably different from the mid-tier ships and quite different again from the lower tiers.
  4. There is another effect. If you play 100 games and get a 50% win rate, then increase your win rate to 70% for another 10 games your overall WR increases to 51.8% If you play 1000 games and get a 50% win rate, then increase your win rate to 70% for another 10 games your overall WR increases to 50.2%. In this particular case I don't believe it's what's happening, and I still think Acasta sucks, and I do about 40k average damage in it so far. Some very critical stats - including stealth, and which torpedoes are used are however set more by WG than by history. WG could readily give Acasta reasonable best-case stealth of 5.7 (let alone Kamikaze's 5.4km) for instance, or as contemporary ships get 7 or 8km torpedoes equip those. It's also WG's choice to give her a pretty garbage smoke option compared to other destroyers. If that's not enough the Acasta should be removed or down-tiered (personally I think it would work) and a more capable vessel substituted. Historic inability should not be a reason to have an underperforming ship.
  5. Worst design flaw you can think of?

    Most guns of the 20's-30's were pretty poor at deck penetrating, including the bigger 16in guns, let alone some of the smaller, older ones. You're talking very limited penetration at closer range and still very poor at long range - ranges where hits were rarely, if ever scored. It's a weakness, but not the end of the world. In the end it was immaterial to her loss. Hood did have a flaw that the combination of weak upper belt, turtleback and thin magazine deck might be penetrated at a certain range: None of the British Battlecruisers at Jutland are likely to have been lost due to plunging fire. The range was simply too short. Far more likely turret penetrations with flash into magazines or perhaps a hit to a secondary magazine in the case of Queen Mary. Hood might be vulnerable to a battleship, in particular a ship 20 years younger. Being deployed that way is a risk, but it's not considered a design flaw of say cruisers that they can't stand up to battleship shellfire, as they sometimes did. If you want a major flaw which actually had a real world implication then there's the Scharnhorst. Hit in the right place and the only armor you need to penetrate to get into her boiler room is 45mm + 80mm: Which is quite probably what saw her slowed, caught and sunk, that or breaking down - another major design floor.
  6. A-cant-sta - can't stealth torp, still not a great gunboat. Stealth is middling. No engine boost and no compensating hydro. A terrible ship, terribly designed. No niche. No capability. No point.
  7. HMS Vanguard

    Her firing angles suck as well, 45' to get all the guns into play. Worse than Monarch.
  8. Good, or bad we may have a new candidate for least played premium ship of it's tier/class. I'm interested to know if something can beat Ashitaka's 16,000 lifetime NA games (next lowest DoY on 250k despite being free). At T6 the competition is Mutsu with 125k (next lowest Normandie, 349k).
  9. Worst design flaw you can think of?

    Maybe it's an unfair observation, but while there are lots of good destroyer designs, and lots of good cruiser designs a lot of the ships trying to straddle the middle ground were pretty unsuccessful. The Condottieri you explain very well the shortcomings, and the French Contre-Torpilleurs too. Aside from shell hoist and vibration shortcomings the Contre-Torpilleurs in combat seemed to show very little advantage over destroyers when it came to combat with cruisers, and moderate advantages over destroyers. The Capitani Romani's were probably successful, though late in WWII, the fact that the French kept their hulls and invested solidly in them suggests they were solid, though the role changed. The German 150mm armed destroyers were ok against destroyers, but tended to get chopped up by cruisers, and the T-22's achieved some good success too against both cruisers and destroyers. I'm really not sure if it was worth it. I'm not sure if I'd call them intermediate destroyer/cruisers or just big destroyers though, probably just big destroyers. The Dutch Tromp 'destroyer leader' fought one plucky engagement in bad circumstances but certainly didn't 'bully' a sole pair of Fubuki derivatives in the major combat excursion of the class.
  10. Please don't quote the whole post for people to have to scroll past.
  11. Problem with Royal Navy task

    Oh, that would explain it. Pretty rubbish, I was disappointed after a 'decent' Acasta game. I thought just hovering the mouse would give you more details.
  12. That's Jean Bart, not Bourgogne... Yes, you'll be able to get a French BB normally (Gascogne), through FXP presumably (Jean Bart) and maybe coal/reward (Bourgogne) all in the same year. It's nice, but very concentrated. Some nations have neither a T9 or T10 premium of any type. That there are more 50% WIP BB than DD/CA-L put together is also bad for diversity. Republique's good, but also the newest T10 BB, probably played by better than average players. It's not necessarily the case that Bougogne will be OP, in fact stats wise it's pretty underwhelming. The combat capability of historic navies should generally take a back seat to balance. If only certain nations had good ships somehow 'reflecting' history the game would be stale and pointless. Who wants 5 Des Moines a side games?
  13. Having a T9 and T10 French BB premium in test simultaneously, while they got a T8 earlier in the year and have a T6 already is pretty perplexing. Then again though, WG released Kronshtadt and Stalingrad in short order. WG - or the playerbase sales metrics - love BB premiums. At the moment announced ships include: BB - Dreadnought, Prinz Eitel, West Virginia, Vanguard, Jean Bart, Bourgogne (6) CA/L - Charleston, Wichita, Alaska (3) DD - Le Terrible (1) Of those Alaska is at the big, heavy end for cruisers and Charleston and Dreadnought are largely irrelevant (in game, T3 prems are low value).
  14. Certainly fits the last 3 free premiums - Indianapolis, Aigle, Duke of York. Vampire before that was ok though, and there were the good old days of Kamikaze R being given out for free too.
  15. Thanks for the review, they're getting better and better - I particularly liked the improved graph graphics you did, cramming lots of good info in. Cossack (being the same hull) originally had the same concealment value as Haida, but after being up-tiered to 8 and getting the concealment module she ended up with 5.1km stealth so was arbitrarily nerfed. Downtiering and reverting that nerf would be entierly reasonable. I am generally disappointed with this ship, the 120mm HE pen threshold at T8 is a huge deal and intrinsic to the ship without doing something abnormal. The smoke-gunboat at T7 penetrating everything, top tier and with only one Belfast to worry about is just wildly different from the smoke gunboat (with bad smoke) penetrating about half the cruisers, no BB and facing 2 Worcesters, a Moskva, a Stalingrad and a division of Missouri's. I guess at least if you're in a world of radar the otherwise trash smoke looks a bit better. Cossack being bumped to T8 was a result of over-tiering Haida. She's effectively been sacrificed so that Haida could be a gimmick-laden T7 and Cossack differentiated. Nearly a year in development is a disappointing, though unsurprising result for this.
×