Jump to content

Trainspite

Supertester
  • Content count

    1,430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    16

Community Reputation

361 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.

7 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

1,905 profile views
  1. Submarine Poll

    And by definition, that is absolutely correct. That is how this game plays. Arcade naval combat which resembles a brawl like seen at First Guadalcanal (I.e. - A bit of a mess). Carriers got in on the action during the interwar period and in the Mediterranean as I pointed out, so they have at least some place in fleet battles, before they pushed the ranges out. Submarines aren't exactly part of a fleet. Sure, they can be used as a tactical aspect, but during a fleet v fleet battle, no submarine turns up in a fleet gunnery duel. They get a limited window in the extended ranges of carrier battles, but this game isn't exactly carrier based, and it is hardly a major fleet role. As said, they are pickets, interceptors and independent opportunists. Historical doesn't mean gameplay as this is a completely arcade game, DD gameplay is relatively fine as it is right now, barring Radar and BB AP problems. Just because you could doesn't mean you should and I am quite doubtful of submarines ever getting to work in random battles. I would prefer to see them limited scenarios/missions or a new game mode entirely. At maximum maybe 1-2 per random game as per carriers, but even then that seems awfully problematic. I have always been of the opinion that subs are more likely to be restricted to certain gamemodes, and from what I can see, I'm not very encouraged that a tech tree for random battles would make it. Early stages of course, but nothing here makes me think these will be a game changer for a new class. For the compressed ranges in game, it seems roughly comparable to a CV sitting at the back of the map out of sight and mind. Only difference being that it can't escape off the map if threatened.
  2. Submarine Poll

    No naval gunfire was exchanged ship to ship in the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Fleet action it may be, the main action was the carriers. At Midway, Yorktown & Hamman was sunk 3 days after the battle. Submarines are fringe fighters, hanging around the edge of fleets is the closest they get. Hence how Cavalla & Albacore hit at Phillipine Sea, and Darter & Dace hitting before Leyte. Various U-boats hanging around the route of Grand Fleet making it's outings in 1916, sinking Falmouth and Nottingham in August. Main point being that plenty of warships are attacked and sunk by submarines, but submarines never participated in the type of enclosed naval brawl that random battles in this game represent to an extent. Carriers mainly didn't either after the main fleet battles became fleet carrier battles over long distances. However, carriers were used in a some fleet battles in the Mediterranean, like Calabria, Spartivento and Matapan, so there is precedent before carriers truly became dominant. There are also the rare examples of a surface fleet coming across a carrier/s with Glorious, Cape Engano & Samar. Submarines can't really boast that. Glorious was sunk by Scharnhorst & Gneisenau, I think you mean Courageous here. Using carriers on ASW patrols didn't turn out so well.
  3. Premium Ship Preview: Alaska

    Not entirely right. BCs didn't always join BBs in formation. The WW1 German BCs would be expected to act as a screen and scouting force (an emphasis put on Lexington as well), but also to take up position in a battle line alongside the Battleships. Similar in a way that the armoured cruisers before them filled in the IJN Battle lines. Then again, no one is arguing Alaska is from the same school of thought as the German BCs. Although designed that they would fill in battle line after their scouting mission, they didn't quite get the chance to at Jutland, for obvious Grand Fleet related reasons. British BCs wouldn't be in a battle line (However much Fisher said and wanted them to be), they would be far more of a screening force and fast wing, hovering around the edges, as an Alaska would. Hence why at Jutland, while the 5th Battle Squadron took position at the end of the Grand Fleet Battle line, but the BC force (now bolstered by Inflexible & Indomitable) sped off in front of the Grand Fleet, perusing the German HSF. The RN BCs were also considered to lead the smaller light and armoured cruiser squadrons as a flagship, although that idea was put paid to given the Germans would combine their BCs into one force. These ships wouldn't stand in for a dreadnought in a formation unlike the German BCs. In the same way the Alaska's are a screen, these RN BCs are a screen and fast wing (before the advent of the fast BB). Furthermore, you can compare non-fleet actions, in what Alaska was meant to counter in heavy cruisers/B64/Panzerschiffes to what RN BCs did at the Falkland Islands or Heligoland Bight. Invincible was developed from Minotaur as well as Dreadnought. Invincible is what you get when putting 12" guns and steam turbines in an armoured cruiser hull, Considering that BC didn't come into use as a term officially until 1911, Invincible and her kin were the Large Cruisers/ Big Armoured Cruisers of their time, rather comparable to how Alaska & co. turned up. Alaska comes from upscaling a Baltimore, Invincible is the development of the Minotaur proceeding in parallel with the revolutionary Dreadnought. I commonly see people just passing off Hood as a surefire BC, yet remain steadfast that Alaska is not a BC. Point being is that you don't really compare the two, yet one has a stronger case for not being a BC to me. Not exactly so clear cut. Where do Ibuki & Tsukuba (even Blucher & Tennessee) come into play? Do they count as a proto-BC given their advantages over other armoured cruisers? Or just an overgrown armoured crusier, part of the shift that brought battleship and armoured cruiser closer together in the first place, resulting with Invincible? Semi-Battlecruiser or pre-dreadnought BC like the Semi-BBs Satsuma & Aki? I would agree that Invincible is the first BC, but something should be said for the previous large classes of armoured cruiser. I would say the need for something along the lines of a BC doesn't really disappear, fast BBs are quite expensive as the largest capital ships around, and it is rather inefficient to use them in the cruiser killer and large fast scout role. So when the treaty lapsed, it seems the lineage is picked up with some different emphasises by the large cruisers and small BCs etc.
  4. Premium Ship Preview: Alaska

    To be fair, if you go by doctrine and relative specifications, then Scharnhorst can be put in the same category or boat as the German WW1 BCs. Sort of. Smaller guns/firepower, but more emphasis on armour. Speed is not quite as behind as compared to the equivalent RN BCs. So this sort of works. As for doctrine, they could stand in line of battle for a bit, though obviously not ideal. Still, my preference is to call Scharnhorst a 'fast BB' or 'small BB', since she is quite heavily armoured, better than any BC I can think of (and if Hood is a fast BB...). Although 'small' in that case refers to gun calibre more than size, they do suffer from the traditional German weight condition. Not completely unrelated. They share similar aspects in their role, and their size over what they were developed from (if it was a heavy cruiser a la USN, IJN & KM). This kind of debate doesn't come from having no relation to each other at all (unlike things like pocket battleship which are put down easily). And Darth has a point I agree with, there is no specialised definition for Battlecruiser. Like how Battleship, Frigate, Destroyer & Sloop evolve over decades and centuries, BC does too, from the proto-BC/Armoured Cruisers and early BCs, to the classical British & German doctrines of WW1, the 1920s/30s/40s 'large cruisers' Dunkerque etc., and the 1970s massive missile cruiser Kirov. Trying to restrict BC to 1909-1920 is basically comparable to trying to partition the term Battleship into pre-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, super-dreadnoughts, treaty Battleships and post-treaty Battleships, but then say that one group shouldn't be called Battleships because they are different from the others rather significantly (Heck, let's through Ironclads in there too). Battlecruiser, like Battleship, is more of an over arching term than anything else, at least in my view. And to be blunt, Alaska is far more BC than things like Hood.
  5. Premium Ship Preview: Alaska

    Re: Large Cruiser waffle Mostly depends on what different people defines a BC. For me personally, the term Battlecruiser is quite broad, there are a lot of evolutions in the BC family. It can cover the first BCs like Invincible, the proto-BCs in Ibuki & Minotaur, the 'classic' BCs of WW1, of German & British lineage, the later 1920s and 1930s interpretations of a cruiser (Dunkerque, Stroopwafel 1047), the 'large crusiers' (comme Alaska), and then the term resurfaces when the Kirov class of 1974 are mentioned (A guided missile BC, or official Russian classification of heavy nuclear guided missile cruiser). There are a lot of parallels that can be drawn between the evolution of armoured cruisers into Battlecruisers, and treaty heavy cruisers into 'Large Cruisers'. Hence I disagree when some try to paint that Alaska and Large cruisers are a near completely separate entity from BC, as usually I find that a lot of people try to restrict BC to just it's traditional meaning with the dreadnought BCs like Lion, Derfflinger & Lexington. The concept and role of the BC doesn't really disappear and differs from navy to navy, and seems to evolve into what the Large Cruisers were slated to do. It's a debatable subject, but like how other naval terms stretch and evolve over time, I see Battlecruiser in the same light. Re. Alaska in game Hold on now, got to answer the door, the NDA is knocking on it.
  6. No mention of the Spanish, so perhaps they escape the Pan-Europe nation. Well, at least that is what the Spaniards are hoping for anyway. On the other hand, this; Maybe Lert can get his Dutch tech tree afterall.
  7. It is usually the case that the lead ship will represent the entire class if it is a regular in the tech tree, hence why Lexington in game has Saratoga's 5"/38, Leander is basically Ajax, or Kongo is Hiei. WG will occasionally get things different on premium ships too, IIRC, Flint has the wrong bridge. The 4 Kongo class BCs had different pagodas upon rebuilding, and I would like camouflage skins to represent them all, unlockable from optional missions, however such a feature is probably not a high priority at all for WG. As to why the original choice was Hiei, perhaps that was what they had to hand when creating the model years ago.
  8. Pensacola needs a buff

    Even good players (or at least some of those that I have run into - and if it includes myself) preferred Pensacola as a tier 7, since she had the flexibility in maneuvering while making the most of her firepower. At tier 6, as you said, she chooses between maneuvering/dodging incoming fire to preserve that HP, or shooting back with the limited effective potential damage that she has with a 15s reload. I can't exactly say much more on her, I disliked her enough to relegate her to port queen status, but I would be concerned at a further buff to her. It might make her too good, if the firepower can apply itself more often, and not just to the broadsiding cruisers that can be found at this tier still.
  9. British BB Split Proposal

    Certainly a unique proposal, but I can't see the advantages of it to just straight out editing the existing line, especially considering how much would go into it. Removing the 1/4 HE and restoring the AP to normal standard is certainly the right start, taking one of the trifecta of the powerful HE away, while giving the AP more use. If you want to go all in, remove the 1,000 alpha buff to the HE or add better bounce angles to the AP (sort of akin to Duke of York the cruiser like BB things). However, after that, the line changes don't really make much sense. Why add a faster Repulse inbetween the 22.5kn Iron Duke and 23.5kn QE? A sudden chop and change for the line at T5, before reverting to more familiar QE seems very odd. The 15" AP is certainly excellent for the tier, but the 13.5 on Iron Duke is nothing to sniff at really. If the AP needs to be propped up, then do it via bounce angles preferably. Plus, I would seem to think a T5 premium Repulse is more likely. As for the changes to the rest of the main line, (or as I would call it, Fast BB), QE can get that much needed turret traverse buff. Monarch doesn't need a downtier, she needs to be sent back through the gates of hell to where she belongs and was created (smelted together in spark and flame from KGV,/DoY Belfast & Nelson). A model she may be, but by model standards, she is bad. Maybe try and pass her off as a premium with a better rendition of Design 15C. Personally, I see the T7 spot open for the autumn 1915 Admiral class preliminary, BB Design A. Essentially a larger, longer, faster QE. As planned, 31,000 tons, 26.5/27 knot speed, and a 5" secondary battery being the main differences. I would imagine it would inherit the rebuild of QE, the gunnery, and it would probably be an excuse to use the Mk.II turret for the 15"/42 outside of Hood and the Admirals. This ship, potentially named 'Devastation', plays into the line quite well. Of course I'm not budging from the opinion of KGV being the T8. Currently, she and Lyon are locked in a 2 horse race to see which can outperform the other, surpassing many T7 premiums. I won't go over the details, but KGV would make a fine T8 once WG fix her ammunition, and give her a few comfort buffs. A nerfed Lion at T8 would also do the job, but is the more boring and uninspired choice. Perhaps the WG version of Lion 1939 can be replaced by Lion 1942 design under the name Temeraire, as tougher T9. I would prefer for Conqueror to not be cloned and split between 457 and 419. Ideally, the 419s would just be removed from her altogether. The 457s aren't bad guns afterall. The B line you suggest doesn't look like a viable alternative to me. Just a single real ship with KGV, and then followed by 1 what if Admiral and 3 fakes. This single line would equal the nation with the most fake ships in game currently (that being Germany), say nothing for the retention of Mongrel and Coloniser. Maybe it isn't a priority for everyone, but stocking up on high tier fake WG designed RN BBs is not exactly my idea of good game design. The cruiser type BBs a la 1st iteration Duke of York can be saved for a different line or branch, one where differentiation may be more difficult, perhaps RN BCs with added main gun reload booster. Ideally, the RN BB line can be fixed or rebalanced with just one new model and Mongrel being sidelined. It could be done even without that, but I'll take any chance to bash the Frankenstein's monster. A proposed split could come from a different line though, BCs, or slow RN BBs, which focus more on being able to take a beating, with good armament proportionately for the tier. However, they are inflexible and not especially stubborn to sink, with some portions of above water citadel. For completions sake, have the regular line as I would edit it: Apologies if I seem to be forcing ideas, I have tried to combine unique gameplay, progression, and historical merit into fleshing out 3 lines for RN BBs
  10. Premium Ship Review #108: T-61

    Gremyaschy is a dinosaur though. In the days of just 3 T5 DDs, she looked alright, even if now she is the equivalent of one of the better T6 DDs (Anshan). What is grave is that WG are just going to release a ship that is blatantly overpowered after being told it is repeatedly. T61 as it is now would make a decent T7 premium, an alternative to Maass (better TTs, gun trades etc., concealment), but it is a T6, and basically makes some T6 DDs look completely irrelevant. If the guns were terrible, then perhaps I could see it being not overpowered, but T61 can and will hold her own in a gunfight, unlike Mutsuki or Monaghan B. Gaede with the 128mm is meant to be a viable choice (unlike with Z23), if the 150mm don't take your fancy, but T61 basically is all that and better. T6 MM or no, this thing can stand toe to toe with T7 DDs effectively. Might even give some T8s a run for their money too. Which is rather bad. As the review says, it isn't insta-win or the most OP ship out there, - but it certainly isn't a good thing. Mind you, it is overpowered enough that if WG do sell it, I might end up getting one.
  11. Premium Ship Review #108: T-61

    I arrive back from a near internet-less holiday for a week and a half, and come back to find T61 being released without nerfs. The cynical side of me would think the marketing department managed to convince the balance department, if the latter was not prone to poor decisions enough already. But seriously. Why. What did the other tier 6 DDs do to deserve this?
  12. Alsace after nerf

    Konig is still bloody awesome. I only played it after the nerf, and suffice to say, if Konig had her 2.0 sigma instead of 1.8, she would safely be overpowered. Cesare has 1.9, and is widely regarded as too good. Konig is quite similar in ways, just being slower and tougher, with a higher RoF. A 0.2 sigma nerf could hardly ruin her. With Nassau now getting a nerf, only Kaiser is left out of the low tier German BBs that is still arguably overpowered. Can't see it happening though, if it took this long to get Nassau tuned down. As for Alsace, I can't believe the hype about the nerf being this bad. She was rather overpowered beforehand, and was nerfed before release, and still ended up being arguably too good. The accuracy nerf doesn't matter as much, I'd be more concerned about the reload and shortcomings that can bring. I'll see when I eventually get down the French BB line, but honestly, Alsace deserved some sort of nerf. How Lyon hasn't got nerfed though, I don't know.
  13. Perhaps people defend it because it is basically the more balanced KGV class at tier 7, and not the overpowered runaway in stats that is KGV. Although they should probably be arguing for KGV to receive the nerf bat or move it to tier 8 where it was/should be/stats suggest it should be, rather than attempting to compare it to it's overpowered tech tree sister. Either that, or the premium status of the ship as a trainer similar to the RN BB line holds some value that can make up for the ship being the poor man's KGV. As for the question at hand, RN BB premiums as captain trainers, they all have their difficulties, but I would think overall, they have their merits as from my experience BB captains tend not to vary that much. Warspite is quite adept at having a secondary build captain, but no other RN BB really has this playstyle. Nonetheless, she is fun ship to play, and one of the best at tier 6. Probably better off for the newer player. Hood has her merits, and is quite competitive, but can be frustrating at times, and takes a bit more finesse to play with her speed and size compared to Warspite's more brawling nature. Nelson shares a lot of aspects with the regular line, but has more of an awkward playstyle, and isn't too new player friendly, being "balanced" around her vulnerability and consumable options. Duke of York is the latest and most unnecessary of the bunch. She would have been better off keeping her T8 role as KGV's B-hull (or being a T8 premium herself), rather than becoming a shadow of the regular ship. Similar playstyle, and has use as a trainer. The ship isn't too challenging to play though, and would have some potential, if not for KGV being outright better.
  14. Ships that earned WoWS medals in real-life

    To clarify, HMS Hood was not named after Adm. Horace Hood specifically. Hood as a namesake goes back to Horace Hood's ancestors, most prominently Admiral Samuel Hood, with two ships carrying the name beforehand. HMS Hood (or at least the one everyone knows) was laid down on 31st May 1916, with the Battle of Jutland happening that very afternoon, evening and night. Subsequently, Hood was suspended after the losses at Jutland, and was redesigned (effectively becoming the without a doubt first fast BB), and eventually re-laid down on the 1st September 1916.
  15. I'll admit, I am probably a bit to eager to jump on what I see as the balancing misdeeds done in game, especially to the RN, without thinking that much about a new player's perspective.
×