Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

4,140 Superb

About mofton

  • Rank
    Vice Admiral
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

7,048 profile views
  1. mofton

    Ideal Submarine Hunting Example

    I mostly play high tiers and the difference of submarine speeds between 8 and 10 makes this sort of achievement impossible.
  2. The proposed low tier modes would surely fragment an already small playerbase further and worsen the situation? Currently I don't play low tiers because - I don't have many ships down there as I don't keep tech tree ones, and WG don't release many premiums The gameplay is horrendous Battleships are slugs with rubbish traverse and unrewarding accuracy, or they're broken GC Cruisers are citadel pinatas without much threat to destroyers (no radar, bad guns mostly) Destroyers are all over the place, predatory in some games, joyless in carrier modes Carriers make everything worse Balance is overall neglected even compared to the hardly perfect state of higher tiers. When was the last time WG balanced a T3-T6 ship compared to the tweaks high tiers get? The base XP rewards etc. are just worse than high tiers. Topping the team in a 15 min game for 1,200 BXP isn't worth the time when at T10 I could get >2,000 BXP topping the team win. There's always something to grind be it mission, dockyard, a new line and T3-T5 is not 'it'.
  3. mofton

    USS Harry Bauer 6 June 1945 Incident

    Prince of Wales took a 15in hit from Bismarck that didn't explode and lodged in a fuel tank. Hit on 24 May, not discovered until drydock on 6 June.
  4. https://www.wargamer.com/world-of-tanks/wargaming-opens-belgrade-warsaw-offices This might be of interest.
  5. Collingwood looked pretty terrible compared to Nelson - thin plating and 2/3 the guns, no super repai. I'm not convinced that hydro and (oh misread) an MBRB are a solution, though MBRB makes a lot more impact than my first incorrect take. Not clear quite what direction the RN BC are going in.
  6. mofton

    News ships being announced on WOWS stream

    Bit of a rogue's gallery - 3 pretty dubious ships from a need/balance/history perspective, and a submarine.
  7. mofton

    Hypothetical Ise Battlecarrier redesign

    I'm really with SgtBeltFed on this. I can't conceive the rotational ball-bearings on turrets working, they seem vastly complex, implausible and susceptible to damage, torque from ship motion, sea spray causing corrosion and basically like a very bad time. Secondly this is a huge amount of top weight to add to a ship without compensation. You're talking a flight deck, catapults, arrestor wires, an elevator, a hangar, ready use spares and maintenance equipment, ammunition, aviation fuel, aircraft - a fully loaded Zero is about 3 tons by the way, so your 50-80 Zero's add another 150-240 tons there alone - and you're putting it all up high in the ship. By shifting the higher parts of the superstructure and funnels all to one side you're also generally imbalancing the weight which will be another problem to rectify. The aviation fuel requirements at 800 gallons full load per Zero times 50-80 aircraft times presumably several sorties each turn into 100,000+ gallons of gasoline which needs storage, transport up to the flight deck and is a huge fire hazard. That doesn't seem plausible when for instance the Kongo was trading her 6in guns out for the modest addition of a few more anti-aircraft guns a few decks above. Your ship isn't a Tardis. Speed is important for a carrier and the 23kt Ise's are already pretty dolorous there before you add your huge air resistance from a hangar plus additional displacement. Edit - submitted too early. This ship would seem to have huge practical issues. You're too slow Any hangar will be amidships and actually quite small and while 'deck park' is an option, you need to do maintenance, clear some of the deck for strikes and cycle aircraft out of the way. This is hugely inefficient there. Carriers generally want to turn into the wind to land and launch aircraft, which clashes with battleship activities of steaming toward or away from the enemy, and holding courses for gunnery I think your big flight deck has just ruined all of the sky lines for all of your AA guns, especially anything high angle. As a battleship your survivability is reduced by topweight, a big superstructure which may be damaged and therefore block/land on/damage the guns beneath it, a box of gasoline and cannon shells on the roof and compromises to the spotting top and fire control offset to one side As a carrier your survivability is reduced by trying to do battleship things, by having a weakly supported flight deck which damage to a single support spar can cause partial collapse of, by having a bodged weapons and fuel handling system and by risks of blast damage. While building a new carrier might take a couple of years, this refit isn't going to be an overnight event either, it'll take some time. For instance converting the tender Taigei into carrier Ryuho took a year, converting Junyo took nearly 18 months, and Shinyo took 18 months - and those ships only cost you merchant or auxiliary hulls tied down vs. frontline battleship units out of the fight. You could argue that it would be faster, but I doubt it could be significantly. Where do all your aircrews and mechanics physically live? You're not losing any crew requirements from the 'battleship' side but you're adding hundreds more support staff and pilots for the aircraft, especially in the numbers you're looking at (500-800 more people?). Overall battlecarriers were a pretty terrible worst-of-both-worlds concept. They were looked at and rejected -
  8. mofton

    Why is Plymouth so bad?

    Firing angles and turret traverse are brutally bad. Gives up too much for situational smoke/radar combo.
  9. mofton

    Kansas-Vermont Branch Changes

    Remember when New Mexico and Colorado had improved speed retention in turns to help offset their really slow speed, but that was then removed?
  10. mofton

    On the Lepanto's rather sloth-like reload.

    My bad, I reversed the vertical dispersion - Minnesota is better. I didn't love Lepanto, I really did find the dispersion a bit naff.
  11. mofton

    On the Lepanto's rather sloth-like reload.

    A faster, shorter ranged Minnesota with 3s off the reload cycle, but also more dispersion at 18.1km (184m horiz /91m vert) than Minnesota has at 23.3km (180m/98m) and 0.2 lower sigma.
  12. The old Standards - New Mexico and Colorado - used to have improved speed retention in turns, they lost that some time ago but now with the chonk line having improved handling perhaps that could be looked at?
  13. mofton

    Premium Ship Review - Brandenburg

    This ship always seemed an odd choice by WG, but I guess the black leather really does sell German battleships. I half thought you were reviewing Mecklenburg when the review opened and I was tea-deprived. Nice review, nothing shocking.
  14. mofton

    Japanese battlecruiser line split

    Maybe the battleship died out because suddenly the battlecruisers had their armor?