Jump to content

Trainspite

Supertester
  • Content Сount

    1,475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    16

Community Reputation

398 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

2,162 profile views
  1. The only part of Eitel's refit that sticks out as out of place is the new bow grafted onto the ship. In game terms it probably just adds more to the turning circle for no gain except for looks in the eyes of some. I'm not convinced it was necessary to stick a new bow onto Eitel as Hipper, Scharnhorst had etc. - given how minor the rebuild of Eitel is compared to Kaiser or Konig. But out of all the WG rebuilt German WW1 Capital ships, Eitel is the best aesthetically, and the best historically. When the competition is Kaiser, Konig & B-hull Bayern, Prinz Eitel easily walks away with it by retaining her Imperial German tripod mast, original speed and most of her superstructure. Sure, there are funnel caps, the Atlantic bow, modern rangefinders, and a smattering of AA including the abundance of dual 105mm mounts, but that is comparatively minor stuff. The L/42 in both 35cm and 15cm guns is a typo, the shells the secondary guns fire should be the same as Bayern however, and that isn't the case for some reason. If only such differences ahistorical or no made the ship anything other than thoroughly mediocre, I'll wait and hope a regular T6 Mackensen doesn't get such nerfs and ends up more enjoyable to play. You may not like it, but this is what peak fictional rebuilt German BB/BCs look like.
  2. Trainspite

    Should I skip the Monarch?

    If it means one less lazily balanced, awfully modelled, historically accurate fake bastardisation sailing around in the game, skip it, do it. At best it is a side-grade from KGV, but that speaks more to how overpowered KGV is. Monarch itself is just mediocre or below average. It's not like all of this could have been avoided at all...
  3. Trainspite

    Premium Ship PREVIEW: HMS Exeter

    I'd be down for a T5 premium HMS Penelope or Aurora (if NA can make enough fuss to get WV 41, then Aurora 42 please). Or better yet, boot Emerald out as per a certain proposal I may or may not have made so Emerald is a 2-hull premium while Arethusa takes the place in the tech tree.
  4. Trainspite

    Premium Ship PREVIEW: HMS Exeter

    They're good, but not *good* in my opinion. Or not exactly instant picks in a competitive scene. Kongo after being a blast in CBT ended up rickrolling me with near constant accuracy issues, but at least I could run away. Furutaka is very nice to play, but does feel limited in potential. Although that potential is unlimited in Aoba, and Aoba was pleasant ride.
  5. Trainspite

    Premium Ship PREVIEW: HMS Exeter

    *seethes in British* T5 is a meh tier in general. There aren't any standout cruisers, the two CVs, BBs and DDs are rather meh too. Exceptions given to Cesare, Kamikaze etc. - Tier 5 is where the game opens up of a sorts, and cruisers suddenly get to experience new and more accurate firepower of the previously derpy BBs, only hoping for RNG or desparate dodge duck and dodge to save them. The ships in themselves aren't inherently bad (even Emerald has some promise under the layers of mistakes), but some consistency would be nice. Better yet, balancing the low tiers and tutorials so newer players are prepared.
  6. Trainspite

    Premium Ship PREVIEW: HMS Exeter

    Anyone up for the concept I have for balancing an RN CA line? Involving buffing the bow/stern/deck plating to make the ships more durable against BB AP per tier, while being relatively weaker offensively. No going overboard with the gimmicks and consumables for once. So for example a T5 Exeter would have 23mm plating, and a T6 York/Exeter would have 25mm plating. Pros of this approach. - Not too gimmicky, just the major defining feature instead of every consumable and special maneuverability case in the book. Much needed 'vanilla' RN line. - Theoretically balanced as a durable-ish Heavy Cruiser, differentiated from other CAs and CLs. All that lower/missing armour on the CLs and DDs has to go somewhere... - RN CAs. Enough said. Cons: - Very tough going on lower tier BBs, and some same tier BBs. Overmatch won't save you now, back to firing HE. - Hence that means more BB HE spam if an RN CA meta turns up or becomes too relevant. Waiting for a reduction BB HE usage might be ideal. - Still going to be blapped broadside. Not quite as flexible as the RN CLs gimmick. Applying this approach to Exeter deprives some value of Exeter being an RN CL captain trainer. It would be harsh to have to continue waiting for a proper captain trainer CL, like Ajax, Sheffield, ~insert Dido sister here~ etc. But I would like to see this happen, and developed further. Just putting it out here to judge the waters and reaction for future reference.
  7. Duke of York may be a balanced T7 premium. But when KGV is sitting there being overpowered as all heck, there isn't a point to DoY with it's certain noticeable disadvantages. Not when the ships are so similar anyway. This is to be expected though with the mess that is RN BBs. KGV wasn't a natural T7, nor DoY, but they are shoehorned in because of WG's mishandled decisions regarding RN BBs. I'm still up for moving DoY to T8 as a premium to complement Vanguard, and for Prince of Wales take her place at tier 7. Maybe even the double rework of Belfast & DoY to T8, it would be better balanced for both in the long run. The issue is the reluctance to do so because of the various outcries from certain minorities.
  8. Trainspite

    Alaska, an upgraded Baltimore

    I remember... I remember I left a couple of you hanging, so excuse my digging a few weeks back while Trainspite.exe reactivates. Invincible, Ibuki, Blucher & Von der Tann are the examples that should be referenced here. The genesis comes from the merger of aspects from Battleships and Armoured Cruisers. This leads into the 1910s arms race and the examples that I listed beforehand. Armour scheme is irrelevant in this case. Design lineages can converge and criss-cross but the end result is what matters above all else, although lineages and hangovers matter to an extent too. The other arguments are covered above, the role evolves but remains strikingly similar, while size is just a factor of economy. Will do the same, to avoid clogging things up. Regarding the size, armoured cruisers had been getting just up to the size of pre-dreadnoughts throughout the previous decade, hence the first Battlecruisers (Dreadnought Cruisers or Large Cruisers), so when the big shift in the transition comes, the displacement and size are on parity with equivalent BBs as these large ships are accepted as capital ships. Hence when the WNT arrives and standard treaty cruisers beginning turning up, the BC is not needed to be as fast as possible, so designs turn to comparatively smaller guns such as the 12 and 13", which in turn gives arise to the BCs/Small BBs. Dunkerque fits very well here, derived from more cruiser like designs to hit the Italian Trentos, but also comparable as a small BB. This role goes on to be taken by what can be called Large Cruisers from their lineage, and therefore an inheritor of the BC role, throne, and ultimately name. Each nation has it's specifics regarding needs, gun calibre and design lineage, but the definition of a BC for me is purposely vague to group them together. The Treaty creates an artificial gap that allows a BC/Large Cruiser type ship to take ahold, but artificial or no, it is still a gap that a larger faster ship takes advantage of, in a similar way to the earlier Armoured cruiser interactions. The game doesn't really work well with the types of ship at either end of the BC timescale, but that is just the nature of the arcade game itself. You could push armoured cruisers like Blucher for T5 even, but whether that is ideal for the game is another matter. I feel it is too specific to just look at a single decade and declare an expansive subsection of ships completely different from similar ships connected by role and to varying degrees of lineage and statistics. The word Battlecruiser and it's use goes beyond this period, and therefore it's definition should be as such. Going into more detailed matters, Large Cruisers can be seen as separate from Traditional/Classical BCs of WW1, in the same way the Treaty Cruisers are different to protected and scout cruisers or fast BBs are unlike the first Dreadnoughts. In such, a BC is a semi-intermediate, since the role matters more in the overall scheme of things to me, as these needs aren't dispersed that easily without conflict, innovation or built examples. Japan referring to the B-65 design as cruisers is natural since that was how they classified their Battlecruisers. The designation B gives that away as a heavy cruiser/battlecruiser, same used for the Kongo & Amagi and their respective design processes. Super Type A represents it's main role in being an escort that can deal with the Alaskas, as previous IJN Heavy Cruisers (& Kongos) were used. It's only ever the USN & IJN that called these ships Large Cruisers from recollection, the IJN in direct response to the USN's construction, and the USN through sheer insistence that these ships are not BC's. Hence I don't think I would call it an acknowledgement, as more of a doctrine based classification.
  9. Trainspite

    Alaska, an upgraded Baltimore

    True, but US Battlecruisers are just US Battlecruisers. The US doctrine for a BC doesn’t apply to all nations, and certainly shouldn’t be the overall yardage stick. No real point arguing specifically within US nomenclature, the US called it a Large Cruiser because that is what suited them, even if it may have started as a ‘CC’. Looking at it globally though, and that is when things become less clear cut. It depends. A fast BB could do all the BC could do by the advent of Hood, the first truly fast BB. However a fast BB is quite inefficient at taking over all of the roles of the BC, a lot of it coming down to cost. With the first generation BCs, they were called Large Cruisers etc. because of their armoured cruiser lineage, and during the arms race between the RN & KM, the BCs gravitated towards being more battleship like and fleet action orientated, instead of being fleet edge/support and cruiser hunters. This leads into the genesis of the fast BB, meaning that the BC then adapts back towards the cruiser end of the spectrum. You know how that ends, the BC concept never truly dies, unless you place the arbitrary condition of being the size of equivalent BBs, but the role is still there, and the design lineages stem backwards for the most part. Even if Alaska goes to be special by taking a Baltimore half way to be being a fast BB of the time. Not really. Iowa is at the BC end of fast BB, but still sits in fast BB territory. Similar to Hood in my books, no doubt it’s a fast BB, although you can clearly see BC influences and traits. Alaska on the other hand sits quite nicely in the gap between fast BBs and conventional cruisers. A space that commonly goes by the name battlecruiser. Gross simplification, but just imagine it as a slider scale with some leeway. Let me list the designs then, and discount a few fast BBs. - G3, K3, J3, I3, H3a etc. etc. – All fast BBs. Similar to Hood and Iowa. Just even more BB orientated, not really BC material. - Amagi – Yes and no. Annoying border area ship. Probably on the BC end, while Kii edges over into fast BB. - Lexington – no one is doubting this hopefully. - Dunkerque – Similar to a small battleship, but has all the necessary traits of a BC. - Strasbourg – This is the small battleship you are looking for. - Various French designs ‘Navire de Ligne’ & ‘Croiseur de Combat’ – Various Dunkerque preliminary designs from 1926-1932, 12-16”” guns, varied size, good speed, BC style armour first appeared to counter the Trento class. Ranging from 17,500t to 37,000t. - Dutch Design 1047 – De-armoured Scharnhorst effectively. - Admiral Zenker’s 1928 ‘cruiser killer’ & P Klasse are a bit too on the Panzerschiffe end. Fast, but wholly lacking in armour for what I would consider a BC. Fits on the spectrum, but can easily be cropped out of it. - D Klasse (design 3b) & Scharnhorst preliminaries like the D-33 series - Panzerschiffes, but faster and better armoured, a little less focused on commerce raiding. - O Klasse – no explanation needed. - 1928 RN Designs 12K & 12L – Nominally among small capital ships, but 26-27,000t, 8-9x 12” armed ships with a 10” belt and a speed of 27 knots is a little slow, but quite similar to others. - IJN ‘Super A’ cruisers. Aka. B64/B65 or V16. Intended for fleet protection and squaring up to the Alaskas. - Kronshtadt / Projekt 69 and it’s preliminaries. Need something to counter those cruisers. I’m fairly sure you would try to group some of those into Lorg Kreuzer and small BB to try and kill the BC, but this does show the fairly persistent development of ships through the interbellum staying roughly similar in size, with a usual common role of beating down cruisers and being an escort. It would seem that the RN, IJN & USN are those who shied away from this type for the most part until later. Perhaps the Italians have anything to add to it. This where we see differently. What prevents you from seeing or at least acknowledging my point of view is this insistence on making the definition Battlecruiser hamstrung by an irrational need to have it be the same size and be similarly armed to contemporary battleships. BCs were designed as upscaled armoured cruisers, taking on some of the armoured cruiser roles like fleet support, while being a counter to other armoured cruisers. You can see the trends easily, and size doesn’t really matter, it is the armour, firepower and speed above size that makes a BC. Alaska doesn’t need to be squaring off against Iowa, South Dakota, or any other battleship to be defined broadly as a BC. Therefore, if you go by this basic genesis BC concept (A ship, equivalent in speed to cruisers, she vastly outmatches them with regard to firepower and armour, but is in turn suitably vulnerable to battleships – there are variations, but this is the basic) – Alaska fits quite decently (12” is no longer top calibre, but it doesn’t make it inexpensive, common or not a significant investment), and that all comes from being a massively upscaled version of a previous more conventional cruiser class, in much a similar a way that the first BCs came about. Again, I have to object heavily to that comparison. Alaska ticks all boxes bar the optional one for size, while Deutschland just barely pulls ahead of conventional heavy cruisers for armour, and falls behind on speed. The Panzerschiffes at that stage are overgrown heavy cruisers. Later Panzerschiffe designs evolve into designs are more BC, and the small battleship Scharnhorst, which technically ticks the boxes for a WW1 German style Grosse Kreuzer. The panzerschiffes themselves though are pudgy CAs. Actually, you get to the case for armoured cruisers as potential T2 BBs in game. They can work that way, since they are the pre-dreadnought BCs. I wrote it off some time ago when suggested, but given the size and development of the armoured cruisers, they have a strong case to be a BB in game. You may say not enough, but given how armoured cruisers evolved, into ships like Minotaur, Blucher, Scharnhorst (first one), Ibuki and Tsukuba, the size and expense coupled with some their armaments (and sometimes lack of speed), there is actually a decent case. Not likely to happen for Mikasa related reasons, but from an ideal standpoint. It doesn’t matter if it was artificially restricted or not. That is irrelevant, but what is relevant is the relative gap in performance and capability between the Large Cruiser/Dreadnought Cruiser and the armoured or heavy cruiser beforehand. Their role is similar enough, although the armoured cruisers had some trouble finding their footing. Battleships being bigger at this later time is a point of industrial and technological progress, which any Large Cruiser isn’t subject to on grounds of cost, on grounds of sensibility. Which is one difference that can be made between different eras of BC, although it has to be viewed in the appropriate context of an arms race against a requirement to do the basic BC/Dreadnought Cruiser/Large Cruiser/Grosser Kreuzer job. As said, it is not just some facets, these ships can be linked quite conclusively to my view under one overarching banner, but each has it’s own development histories/designs and settings that can lead to some going to differentiating them. In most cases, it is mainly Muricans just going ‘muh large cruiser, can’t you see, how dare you’, but there is some points to be made in that favour. There isn’t exactly a correct answer, but I don’t find those points convincing enough when compared the alternative. I don’t really think I get it much clearer than I can already without repeating myself over and over, unless I want to start creating taxonomical branches for the BC family, or sliding spectrums and diagrams where each can fit. Maybe one time I will go create those though, another thing I will get around to in months. Leave it at that until then perhaps?
  10. Trainspite

    Mouse's Little White Christmas Reviews #1: Vanguard

    Maybe one day I will convince WG to banish that abomination to the phantom zone. Or at least change significant aspects of the ship to make it represent the design that WG claim it to be, and not just the aborted Frankenstein's monster of RN BB parts that it is. And then throw it out there as a T8 premium because I long for the return of the King (George V to T8). I'm pretty sure Vanguard has HE shells that have different firing velocities/shell flight times to the Mongrel's HE shells though, since they are different guns/shells. Unless I get another reason to whinge about the state of the RN in game.
  11. Trainspite

    Alaska, an upgraded Baltimore

    Far too many people here need to update their definition of Battlecruiser. Saying it died with Hood it's outright wrong considering all the further BC orientated and named designs that continued through the 1920s and 1930s. Come to your own conclusion on what a Large Cruiser is if you will, but given previous nomenclature of BCs, general characteristics, intended and actual roles, as well as some similarities in development origin despite the differences of the time, I am firmly of the mind that Large Cruisers such as Alaska can be put under the much broader term of Battlecruiser, a sub-section and evolution of the term.
  12. Trainspite

    HMS Vanguard and HMS Dreadnought Problems

    Dreadnought's description is fine in game. Revolutionary in being the first completed all big gun battleship, including turbines. I'm more concerned about the 'absolutely obsolete main guns' in Vanguard's description. That is more likely to give people false impressions about the 15"/42. Old, ageing for sure, but 'absolutely obsolete'? Whoever wrote that must really hate the 15"/42.
  13. Whatever usefulness and point of Lightning that was left has vanished. All hail Commodore Cossack. Buffalo needed something, but she still doesn't fit, and probably never will. Roon & Hindenburg probably didn't need any buffs though. Same with Cossack, if anything should have been changed, the torrid smoke is the first candidate.
  14. Trainspite

    T-61 Is Not OP

    *significantly better than T6 regular counterparts* *Gaede, Gallant, Shinonome & Monaghan are all sitting at the bar drinking in a depressed manner* *Fubuki & Hatsuharu are gently crying in torpedoboat in the corner* *Farragut, Anshan, Fushun & Aigle all nervously check behind them, even the visiting L.Maas is concerned* *Icarus & Gnevny don't seem to care in the fight for worst T6 DD on centre stage* *T61 quietly enters the bar, looses salvo after salvo of torpedo combined with some good gunfire and duly escapes - carnage and panic ensues* Published by WG, 'Nightmare on T6 DD street'.
  15. Trainspite

    When is the next USN Heavy Cruiser rework?

    It might good in the sense it received attention, but I think the results of that attention have been rather mediocre. - Thoroughly agreed on Pepsi. If she was considered a stopping block and turn off at tier 7 because of her playstyle and disadvantages, the T6 Pepsi asks her old self to hold the metaphorical pint of bitter and proceeds to be the biggest single turn off for anyone heading up the USN CA line. - New Orleans is probably the biggest success of the changes, she is very comfortable ship to play, and taking the only poor performer in the previous line and making her into one of the peaks has something to be said for it. Unfortunately, New Orleans success comes at the cost of dumping Pensacola in the trash. - Baltimore I can agree on. At times she feels too big at T8, too clumsy and unmaneuverable, and while she still has her firepower, her limitations hold her in balance. There isn't anything exciting about her however, while at T9 she was a very well rounded precursor to Des Moines. If ever there was a time for a T9 Oregon City FXP premium a la T9 Baltimore, now is it. - Buffalo... stealing the phrase 'Walking Mediocrity' from Urinating Tree describing the Bills and applying it to the Buffalo in game is almost a perfect match. The alternative description is the 'Sh*tty Zao'. She is an uncomfortable jolt in playstyle, and while has her place, it probably should be in a different USN CA line. Her performance doesn't seem that exceptional, and she is probably at the low end of the spectrum for T9 cruisers on account of her more pronounced disadvantages. Still above Ibuki though. - Des Moines, my only tier 10, but is all that Salem geared me up to look forward to. No regrets about FXP'ing to unlock her in the twilight days of T9 Baltimore. Overall though, I don't see much difference. There is still one poor ship in the line, (NO vs Pepsi), there are two good ones (Balti & DM, NO & DM), while the rest have a distinctly mediocre aura around them. While the jolt in playstyle remains at T6 with Pepsi taking up Cleveland's old mantle, Buffalo now adds another layer of complexity, which in my opinion was rather unnecessary. Personally, the changes I would make would be made with a split in USN Heavy cruisers, between the smaller faster RoF 2 forward turrets, 1 aft ships, with another line being made up of 2F and 2A more well balanced ships. Two different flavours of USN CA. Pensacola, New Orleans and Baltimore all return to their previous tiers, while Buffalo and Pensacola are shifted across to the new line. New Orleans gets balanced closer to a certain T8 premium, and should ideally receive an HP repair as most T8 standard cruisers should. There is no reason why these ships can't be balanced well afterall, at either tier. Northampton inherits her playstyle from T7, as perhaps a premium San Fran would too. Long term plans that would sound like madness to you, I'm sure. I don't really like having a Pepsi with no nerfs at T6 though. If she could carve out her niche as an overall meh ship at T7, the devastation that could be wrought on the other T6s... Maybe a bit extreme, but considering the overall opinion of Pensacola wasn't bad at T7, the changes to put her into T6 made her two faced, perhaps there is a middle ground to be had. Just going add a passing mention on Aoba for any who care for her, almost thought she was at the low end of T6, and then checked in and came around. It's probably just the turret traverse and/or range combined with the MM getting people down. Like how the torpedo reload keeps Gallant from shining and comparing well. She is still a very solid ship. Lack of potential DPM isn't really the same as lack of applied DPM, (and DPM is trash for balancing on it's own anyway). I'll take the plucky little 6-gun all-arounder over the ungainly overcompensating 10 gun ship all day. She sits with the other T6 regulars in equal standing. Buffs would be welcomed, but no serious problems found here.
×