Jump to content

Trainspite

Supertester
  • Content Сount

    1,506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    16

Community Reputation

420 Excellent

About Trainspite

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Birthday June 3
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    No
  • MSN
    Nope
  • Website URL
    Nahh
  • ICQ
    Nada
  • Yahoo
    Negatory
  • Jabber
    Nosirree
  • Skype
    Actually, no.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Garden of England.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,503 profile views
  1. Trainspite

    A question about fictional ships

    So effectively made up guns, alongside the made up hull and turrets. Henri IV might just be the most fictional ship in the game in terms of having the least real or historical things about or on it.
  2. I would put that down more to people being bored of a 3x 3 turret arrangement. Personal preference of course though. Nothing to stop the 3x 3 design having all the traits of the 'super Montana', without being an invention of the 21st century.
  3. Trainspite

    A question about fictional ships

    Certain paper ships and designs are needed, although going overboard with them is undesirable. They can be interesting designs and good expressions of the nation. Certain unique or interesting designs are ideal as more exclusive reward ships, it avoids the historically relevant ship being locked away potentially being unobtainable for those that would like it. Fictional ships are unfortunately on the rise more though. These ships have some to no basis in history and are made mostly to fill a gap, like Hindenburg, Roon or Henri IV. But some are just unnecessary, and had real designs or even built ships themselves that would take the role better. I think SireneRacker sums that up pretty well. Ships that I would call fake or fictional (to varying to degrees of made up, from just changing the guns to being a complete WG design) Hill - 1917 1,525t Destroyer Leader, but main guns have been replaced (5"/51 to 5"/38). Dallas - A light cruiser made up by WG, takes some inspiration from the Design 389 Scheme 4C of 1936 but is a completely different design. Georgia - Iowa preliminary Scheme IV May 1938, the 3x 3 16"/45 have been replaced by 3x 2 18"/48. Ohio - Montana with 18"/48 twins dropped in place of the 16"/50. Harugumo - WG designed destroyer around having 5x 2 100mm. Hayate - WG designed destroyer around 3x 2 127mm Type 1. Monarch - DoY hull with Nelson turrets and post-WW2 features. Conqueror - WG's attempt at a Mega-Vanguard. Post-WW2 BB based around 4x 2 18"/45. Thunderer - See above. Roon - WG designed cruiser using German 203mm triple turret design. Hindenburg - See above. Großer Kurfürst - WG designed battleship using triple 406mm turret design. Kléber - Some sort of Mogador based thing that doesn't resemble the Mogador-bis designs. Henri IV - Fictional cruiser with 240mm guns, which I don't know where they came from. Normandie - So far removed ("rebuilt") from the original design that it might as well be something else. Lyon - See above. République - Designed as a Mega-Gascogne or something, using a 431mm gun project. Shenyang - Not sure, but differs a lot from what Namikaze looked like post-WW2. Huanghe - Fictional rebuild of Chungking using Soviet armaments. (On second thoughts, I probably could have just posted an image of the excel doc I have detailing all the paper ships in game instead of picking out the fake ones).
  4. Welcome to Thunderer-land. It annoys me to no end how each nation in the game gets entirely fictional ships (except Russia for totally not inexplicable reasons). Especially when there are real alternative designs that that do the same job. It costs more modelling effort and time, but I think it would be more sustainable and desirable in the long term. I do hope Ohio can be re-imagined into this design, much how I would like to see Thunderer re-assigned to one of the Lion designs.
  5. Trainspite

    What ship is this?

    I'd agree with Murotsu and wager that it is one of the Southampton's (although not Birmingham for sure). The high sided superstructure flush with the hull and bridge shape give that away compared to the Crown Colonies, Edinburghs and Gloucesters. I'm not completely certain, but it probably is Southampton herself thanks to the sponsons containing directors on the side of the superstructure being different to her 4 sisters.
  6. Trainspite

    ST: New ships - Hayate and Thunderer

    The 1920s design proposals like L2, L3, N3 etc. are perfectly capable of being modernised with a rebuild along the lines of those planned for Nelson and Rodney, and then taking their place at T8, 9 and 10 (although keeping the 6" secondaries for an A-hull or two would be nice). There is no need to try and put them at T7 where they would outperform everything else (except possibly the broken OP KGV). Conqueror is a fictional ship that has no relation to L2, bar that both ships share the same 4x 2 18"/45 layout. WG designed her as a follow on to Lion and Vanguard. A post-WW2 BB designed around a new hull with new turrets housing the 1920s 18"/45 had any guns actually been completed. Or as I describe it, the mega-Vanguard, given the similarities in superstructure, secondary armament and hull form. The lattice masts roughly and given date of 1949 by WG correlate to this being WG's interpretation of a bigger post-war Vanguard. L Twin (along with L Triple) was the design that had all turrets mounted at the same level, but this was obviously not ideal, hence the next designs in the series were L2 and L3. Sorry if I seem harsh, I just should make more of an effort to set the record straight with the fictional ships in game.
  7. Trainspite

    ST: New ships - Hayate and Thunderer

    I was first introduced to Conqueror as L2, before taking a long hard look at and saying; 'But isn't this just a mega-Vanguard with new turrets and old 18" guns?' - The WG Thunderer isn't your creation, I just don't want to tread on any toes while going about my business of whinging at Neo-Thunderer. The implementation has some interesting changes , but I do feel it could be done better rather than currently. Removing the 419mm from Conqueror would be the start since I believe these to be the biggest problem with it. This can leave Conqueror with the 457mm on top of the tree alone, while the 12x 16" spirit can be channelled into a T9 (T10?) premium Lion Design 16E/38. 12x 406mm, KGV armour, and a 25/26 knot speed. Fire chance could be retained, but 1/4 pen and alpha damage can be toned back alongside RoF to be less annoying to face in battle. And then the features that current Thunderer has could be passed onto it, at least with regards to the def AA and repair party. Et voila, T9 premium to be dispensed through whichever currency takes peoples fancy at the time. That would leave 457mm Conq alone, but I would prefer to re-model the RN BB line into a relatively accurate, stealthy, more AP focused line, with a max of 10 main guns in the line; so said accuracy (akin to Warspite hopefully) isn't too dominant. I still remember the initial version of Conqueror anyway, I know what the 457mm are capable of, but the 419mm have overshadowed them with their weight of fire as you say. The disadvantage of that approach would be that you have to model a new ship and tie it in with a line re balance which doesn't seem to be that forthcoming. I'm not completely pleased with Vanguard's implementation (with regards to the citadel), so taking Conqueror 2 back to it's roots with a Vanguard playstyle is concerning to an extent. The 457mm do need to be competitive enough, perhaps a bit more akin to Republique. 30s with lazor 29km accuracy was brilliant with a 30s reload, but 457 Conqueror has neither anymore, making 30s feel long in tooth. Early days, so perhaps I can attempt to show why Thunderer is an unnecessary partner to Conqueror or so, but the track record of me being listened to/acted on is restricted to very few cases with many asterisks attached. And even then things like Cossack's camouflage still bug me. (Also downvoted, apparently some don't care as much for fakeboats as I do. I cry everytime.)
  8. Trainspite

    ST: New ships - Hayate and Thunderer

    Temporarily ending a self-imposed exile from the forums because I don't think muttering around on discord gets me anywhere. Thunderer is just another notch of disappointment on the irritating long list of things 'wrong' with the RN in game. Splitting the T10 BBs based on gun options seems like another short sighted decision to make additions to the variety of T10/high tier gameplay without modelling or putting the effort into the low and mid-tiers that would make up a regular line. I'm not exactly a fan of that since it detracts from any future lines, and is a bit of a cop out, low effort, low-ish reward. It also doesn't solve the problems with the Conqueror and it's very balanced 419mm. Or maybe the root cause of this premium salt is the fact that a fictional/fake design by WG is being cloned. Especially since it uses the name Thunderer, meaning the more interesting and historical Lion class designs get kicked to the curb in favour of Conqueror 2, return of the fakebote. I could suggest more appropriate names like Leviathan, Powerful or Tremendous, but that would just be affixing a plaster to a serious gash. (Apologies to LWM for berating her project, I never thought something I always thought of as a joke to highlight issues with the RN BBs would end up being reality).
  9. Trainspite

    Ark Royal ... just why, WG? T_T!

    The entire reason Ark Royal has any reason to be at T6 is to allow a better environment for her Swordfish. Otherwise, it can cause complications for other potential T6 RN carriers by putting what should be a T8 at T6. Of course, there is the chad idea of buffing the Swordfish to levels only their mythos would allow, and have an Ark Royal at T8 regardless with Swordfish, Skuas and Fulmars duking it out with the AA of a Montana. Stranger things have happened afterall...
  10. Trainspite

    British ATA in WW2

    Lest not forget Prince George, Duke of Kent (Younger brother of Edward VIII/Prince of Wales and George VI/Duke of York) was killed in an RAF crash in 1942 too.
  11. Trainspite

    Mouse's Previews of Yukikaze and Montpelier

    It has been a long time since I saw that ship last. It has only 2x 2 25mm for AA I think? Not quite the 14x 1 and 3/5x 3 25mm that Yukikaze had IIRC. I believe the model of Yukikaze is an exact clone of Kagero right now. Perhaps Tan Yang will turn up at a later date with the other armament options as well to complete a set.
  12. Trainspite

    Mouse's Previews of Yukikaze and Montpelier

    Am waiting for the historically accurate cosmetics and premium camouflages to crop up for these two. You know, correct AA and radar outfits for all 6 people that care about it (What do you mean most people will want them for weeb reasons and not for chad historically accurate purposes?!). Montpelier has a nice aesthetic historical camouflage and interesting radar outfit from 1944. Yukikaze... eh. Can't do much with that one. If they don't get accurate stats, I will be mildly disappointed and just naff off in a huff to resume your regularly programmed tirade against the Monarch Mongrel, and how KGV should replace it. Little Rock or Fargo might have been other options for a premium Cleveland but Montpelier works. Clones aren't that bad, though Yukikaze seems to have inherited some of the worst traits from RN DDs.
  13. To be honest, I would really prefer Cesare to just receive nerfs at T5 and be done with it. Offer a refund in doubloons to those who own it if they so wish, and move on to bringing other OP/UP/problematic ships in line. I don't really understand the outcry, I never bought a ship purely because it was OP and trusted it would be left as such in eternity. I bought a Cesare since I liked it and it was on discount. I won't lie, being an OP ship had some part in choosing it over other potential choices, but I never believed it would be untouchable. What exactly is the issue so many people have with the Cesare being nerfed so it isn't OP? That's a positive step for the game. Sooner or later things would change in the game that effect it right, and it is better to look at things as always changing/evolving than as completely static. I'm all for getting these OP and UP ships better balanced so they don't outperform everything at the tier, are too oppressive to play against and are competitive without overwriting the competition. It's a healthier environment for the game to go on with, and I'm pleased WG are actually looking into it. Imagine T5 Ranked without the constant Cesares and Kamikazes. Or new players that won't get brutalised by Konig Albert or Valkyrie. WG's development and marketing teams do seem to have a disconnect and the timings are very questionable, and sometimes certain ships just get pushed out the door in an "odd" state. Communication and some of WG's approaches (as mentioned by LoveBote) are also quite iffy as this thread is showing and some people aren't that skilled at looking forward, and take things at face value. For certain though, certain people aren't covering themselves in glory when responding to the topic. Simply going 'reeee wallet closed go elsewhere' just implies, to me at least, that you were slow to the update and think about certain purchases. Cesare should be edited for the sake of the game, simple as. Apologies and compensation go where they must, and life ticks on. (Now watch someone say I am a WG Shill for daring to not wanting Cesare to be kept as is. Such is life.)
  14. Can't say I agree with Exeter being meh, she's one of the strongest tier 5 cruisers for me, her HP repair gives her the sticking power that Furutaka has, her guns are slightly worse, but still capable. Her other aspects are all very well rounded and generally above average. Small citadel, maneuverable, good gun and torp firepower flexibility ignoring the lack of guns and RoF, and stealthy to boot. There was some promise for a T6 Exeter, it would have been quite interesting, but I can't really fault WG too much for this T5 version. It's an RN ship with just 2 gimmicks on it, and that in itself is a rarity. It's not the improved 24mm for a T5 (25mm for a T6) all over plating approach for an RN CA I wanted, but it is acceptable at least, even if I don't like having the HP repair at T5, similar to how Abruzzi got it out of the blue where no cruiser had gone before. Not sure if she is going through those missions for, but she is solid premium at least. Hopefully those missions get toned back a little. Edit: This does feel rushed though, pushed out the door before a perfect ideal is reached. This ^. So very much this.
  15. Trainspite

    HMS Exeter - First Impression

    Probably the best tier 5 cruiser around if you can stand slow firing guns and lack of damage per salvo. If not, go play Omaha or Murmansk for spamming. That HP repair keeps it alive beyond what it reasonably should, the maneuverability and concealment are handy. The torpedoes are potent. The citadel is tiny compared to the other T5 cruisers and averagely protected. The guns are not quite Furutaka standard but can still overmatch T5 cruiser bows and have a decent HE round (similar to USN 203mm performance with better HE over AP). It's a flexible ship if you know how to handle long reloads, and overall I'd say it is better than Furutaka. And to think people want to treat it like a gimmicky CL and give it's smoke back. That has me shaking my head a bit. It's not quite the RN CA concept I want, that HP repair should ideally be removed for better plating, but it is better than the RN CL gimmick fest. Heavens forbid any other RN CA ends up with smoke.
×