• Content count

    965
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3520

Community Reputation

174 Valued poster

About ForgMaxtor

Recent Profile Visitors

255 profile views
  1. I can access the Clan tab, and things appear to display and work OK inside the Clan tab (hard to tell for sure because I'm not a member of a Clan yet), but the game crashes when I try to leave the Clan tab by clicking on another tab. I'm going to do a little more investigating to determine the consistency of the bug, and then report to WG and Codeweavers.
  2. Kinda, but misses the larger picture. Chikuma 1 did pass through the right general area at the right time to potentially spot TF 17, but did not. Possibly a cloud bank or rain squall concealed US ships to Chikuma 1. Or maybe Chikuma 1 strayed north of its intended route. Hard to say for sure. The larger problem with the searches was that the Japanese simply didn't devote enough planes to effectively search a very large area of open ocean under less than ideal visibility conditions -- there was substantial medium to low-level cloud cover through much of the search area, which limited how much ocean the spotters could actually see as they flew their routes. In hindsight, some aircraft from the CV air wings probably should have been used to provide redundancy over the search vectors. Indeed, one of the doctrinal changes the IJN made after the Battle of Midway was to increase the number of aircraft devoted to search patterns. But the searches flown at Midway were doctrinal for the IJN in mid-1942. In general, early-war IJN doctrine strongly advocated reserving as many of the CV wing aircraft as possible for strike waves, using only cruiser and BB catapult planes for search missions if at all possible. So it was not so much a failure of the IJN commanders at the battle, as it was a failure of doctrine. And yes, there were a few D4Ys at Midway. I don't remember offhand which CV carried them but Soryu sounds plausible. If these had been used to augment the catapult aircraft in the radial search patterns, perhaps at least one of the USN TFs would have been spotted sooner and the outcome would have been different. Or maybe not. IMHO, the core problem for the IJN Midway was a dispersed, overly complex battle plan that relied too heavily upon the assumption that the enemy would fight as expected. I'm not sure whether any slightly better tactical decisions, such a few more search aircraft devoted to seeking out the USN CVs, would have been enough to compensate for the fundamental operational flaws.
  3. Ya, the whole Patriot's Point museum is well worth it. Been a while since I was there but I'll definitely second the recommendation. IMHO, the Sumner class is best understood as a slightly smaller sibling class to the Gearing. The Gearing class was basically a Sumner class with the hull lengthened slightly to create more fuel storage for better range. In terms of armament and other tactical attributes, the Sumner and Gearing classes were virtually identical. The two classes were so similar that they are sometimes considered one class with two subdivisions -- i.e., the "Sumner/Gearing" class. Compared to the Fletchers, The Sumner/Gearings featured a slightly larger hull form which allowed them to mount a 3x2 main battery, rather than the Fletcher's 5x1. They also had twin rudder layout compared to the Fletcher's single, giving them better low-speed maneuverability especially. Even considering these improvements, I do think it's accurate to consider the Sumner/Gearing design an incremental evolution of the Fletcher design. In general the Gearings did tend to stay in USN service longer than the Sumners, because their slightly larger size meant more room for Cold War-era systems upgrades. But these upgrades are largely out of WoWS scope; in the WWII-era, the armaments of the two classes was nearly identical. I do think a Sumner class Premium would be a fun addition the game, especially if it were a ship with a storied history such as Laffey. The challenge would be to find ways to differentiate a Sumner premium from the Gearing class already in game, since the armament for the two classes was virtually identical. An in-game Sumner would probably need to be nerfed relative to the Gearing to make it fit no higher than T9 as I don't think WG has any interest in releasing a T10 Premium.
  4. Update 0.6.10 was smooth as a baby's [edited] for me. No Wrapper update or clean install needed. Thanks WG! The data repack does take a while. Especially if your Mac is not particularly powerful, I'd recommend closing down any background processes so your system resources can concentrate on the repack. It's also a good idea to make sure you've got a decent amount of slack space on your installation drive before you initiate any process like this..
  5. This. Originally, post-battle maintenance/repair varied depending how much damage you took and whether or not your ship were sunk. But this was perceived as encouraging passive, conservative gameplay. Especially if your side was clearly losing, the variable repair cost was an incentive to run away and hide in a corner in order to keep your damage (and therfore repair costs) down. They changed this a while ago (6-9 months?). Now, since repair cost is constant, from an game economics viewpoint, especially if your side is clearly losing, your best play is to find a way to "death blossom" and cause as much damage to the enemy side as possible, even if you eventually die as a result. Some players haven't figured this out -- I still sometimes see players running away and hiding when they're clearly on the losing side. In so doing, all they're really doing is losing the opportunity to cause a little more damage (and therefore earn more credits & XP) before the battle is over.
  6. Ya; it depends a lot on tactical situation. With theses caveats noted however, in general I love to "defend" the carrier when it's tactically feasible. Players that get within striking range of an enemy CV tend to get tunnel visioned on taking out the CV, often to the point of ignoring other threats. Some if my highest scoring games have been where I was able to use a friendly CV as bait, scoring easy kills on enemy ships trying to "Scratch the Flattop."
  7. The Slater is not a DD, it's a DE. Cannon class to be specific. DEs were smaller, slower, and more weakly armed than a full-out DD. They were built because they were cheaper, and could be constructed in civilian yards that couldn't handle full warships. But they were still effective anti-submarine ships, so they were efficient convoy escorts. At 21kt. top speed, 3 x 76mm gun and 3x1 torps, A Cannon class would struggle to compete against DDs at T2 in the game, let alone T6. Honestly, were it not for the torpedoes, a Cannon class would be on a rough par with the Erie at T1. Some of the successor classes to the Cannons, such as the Rudderow and John C. Butler classes, were much more powerful, with 5" guns and higher speed. These might be able to be worked into the game as a lower tier DD with a bit of fudging.
  8. That's because the Cleveland-class' Bofors and Oerlikon complement is substantially nerfed from historical reality in the game. The game's upgraded ("B Hull") Cleveland carries an AA complement similar (but not identical) to what the very first Clevelands had in 1942 - 6x2 40mm and 13x1 20mm. But this was quickly upgraded. Exact dates and details of the Cleveland-class AA upgrades vary considerably from hull to hull, but by late 1943, most Cleveland-class were carrying roughly twice as many 40mm Bofors tubes as depicted in the game, as well as additional 20mm. Beyond 1943, the Cleveland-class 40mm complement was increased even further, with the most common configuration at the end of the war being 4x4 and 6x2 40mm, albeit at the cost of some of the 20mm Oerlikons. The stock Cleveland "A Hull" AA configuration in the game with 1.1in "Chicago Pianos" rather than 40mm Bofors never existed. This configuration does resemble what some of the earlier CL classes (such as St. Louis) were mounting in early/mid 1942. And it may be that during the Clevelands' initial design/construction period, the original plan was to mount 1.1in. AA guns, but if so these were upgraded to 40mm Bofors before they were were actually mounted -- no Cleveland-class was ever commissioned mounting 1.1in. AA guns. When first commissioned, the St. Louis-class carried only 8x1 .50 cal. and nothing else for light/medium AA. This was quickly upgraded and from mid-1942, for any given date the light/medium AA armament on both the Brooklyn and the St. Louis-class generally resembles the armaments on the Cleveland-class, above.
  9. I'm not on my Mac ATM so I can't provide screenshots atm, but the link below provides good text instructions of how to do a full wipe of WoWs manually on a Mac: https://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/crossover/tips/world-of-warshi ps/how-to-wipe-and-reset-world-of-warships If you need more, lmk and I can put up screenshots for you.
  10. This. For the last few updates, for whatever reason on my Mac I've had to do a full delete and re-install to get the game to run properly. But once I do this the game is stable with good performance. Not too much of an inconvenience for me as I have a good fast home internet connection. I start the download in the morning right before I head out for to give the dogs their morning walks, and it's done by the time I'm back.
  11. @velvet_velour Thanks! Always encouraging to see active support of the Mac Wrapper from WoWs. If I may add my $.02, doing a full delete and then reinstalling the wrapper and game from scratch has been an essential step me with the past few game updates. But as long as I do this, the recent versions of the game + Mac Wrapper have been very stable for me. The graphic performance is good considering my system stats, and only very rarely have I experienced any issues such as lag, let alone a full-out crash. I suspect the few times I have gotten booted out of a game it's been due to an interruption in my internet connection, rather than an issue with the Wrapper or game, as such. I do the full delete manually, navigating into the Library folder and deleting the game files myself, but AIUI AppCleaner does basically the same thing. I just don't completely trust automated "cleanup" programs so I prefer to take the time to do it myself. One tip I learned the hard way: If you do the full delete manually, make sure to empty your trash once you're done as unlike the automated update process, deleting the game manually and then re-installing does not automatically completely delete the old files; they just go into your trash. The game files take up quite a lot of drive space and if you leave old copies sitting around in your trash, you'll likely find yourself running out of free disk space.
  12. The "official" version of how to to a "full wipe" of the wrapper and WoWs from a Mac: https://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/crossover/tips/world-of-warshi ps/how-to-wipe-and-reset-world-of-warships Obviously, ignore the instruction to download and install a new wrapper at the end if your goal is simply to get rid of the game rather than do a clean re-install. The above doesn't actually 100% move all evidence that WoWs has ever been installed on your Mac, but getting into the registry edits etc. required to remove all traces of an app is complicated and usually uneccessary; the above is generally "Good enough for government work." Honestly, whether you're talking about PCs or Macs, if you want to be 100% sure that all traces of a complex Application like WoWs are completely wiped from a computer, you need to do a complete drive scramble, and then reinstall the OS from scratch.
  13. Yeah... A full wipe and re-install from scratch seems to be SOP for WoWs game updates on the Mac now. Requires a little extra download time and effort but at least it works. I do the full uninstall manually by navigating into the Library and deleting the "hidden" game files myself, but there are also apps like the above-mentioned Appcleaner that will do a automated scrub for you. I just don't like to have 3rd party programs rooting around and deleting Library files on my system any more than necessary.
  14. Yes; appears to be the same bug that I caught during the Public Test (see above). I am sending in reports now...
  15. Thx. WG has already responded on the linked thread and said they're aware of the issue and working on it, so hopefully there will be a timely fix for this one.