Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

177 Valued poster

About ForgMaxtor

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

452 profile views
  1. US Cruiser Split in 0.7.5

    If I understand it correctly (and assuming rumors are correct; I don't think this is "officially" confirmed by WG yet): - If you own all ships T6-10 in the current USN cruiser line, once the split is complete you will own all ships in the new CA (Heavy) USN cruiser line. Some ships will shift tier, but your CA line will be complete, T6-10, after the split. In addition, if you currently have the T6 Cleveland, you will gain the new T8 Cleveland, as well as the T6 and T7 USN Light Cruisers in the new USN CL Line (Dallas and Helena, respectively). It will not be possible to earn the new T9 and T10 USN CLs (Seattle and Worcester, respectively) ahead of the split. Best you can do is make sure you own the Cleveland before the split so you will gain the new T8 Cleveland as a jumping-off point to the T9 and T10 CLs.
  2. Is DF on the Cleveland a waste?

    It depends. If you're top tier in a T6 game, DF is probably overkill in a Cleveland as even without DF her AA will generally own the planes from any CV at T6 and below.. However, with the way MM is right now, IME you get thrown into a lot of T8 games when you play T6. In a T8 game the Cleveland's AA is still good, but it's no longer particularly exceptional -- there are other cruisers whose AA is comparable. So T8 CVs will definitely test a Cleveland's AA bubble and you can do some good for your team with DF. Personally, I usually keep DF on my Cleveland and when needed I use the Cat Fighter as a sort of poor man's hydro. The cat fighter can't spot ships in smoke, but it does a pretty good job of spotting incoming torps.
  3. The Taint

    Lol. Yeah; looks like WG could use another native American English speaker on staff for copy review in the NA market, or at least a consultant they can bring on in an as-needed basis. Any half-decent commercial copywriter would know that "taint" is one of those words you just don't use in commercial copy right now. "Moist", "erect", "swollen"... there are a lot of words that aren't technically "nasty" by dictionary definition, but you have to be very careful about using in commercial copy due to the slang connotations.
  4. HE penetration

    For whatever reason, rather than using one of the many more recent threads on HE, Thewavis chose to raise this thread from the dead -- Back when I wrote that post, over 9 months ago, there were no RN BBs. But yes, RN BB HE uses the 1/4 caliber penetration rule as well.
  5. Murmansk.

    Erm... yeah; it's early game, and you're in open water 6.9km from an enemy BB there. It's a miracle you made it that close before you got rekked. The only time you should ever get that close to an enemy BB in a Murmansk is if there's an island or smoke in the right place to allow you to set up a torp ambush without getting shot at. She's not a front line ship. She has almost no armor and crappy concealment so her only defense against incoming fire is dodging. Fortunately, Murmansk is fairly agile so she can dance pretty well. But you do need distance to dodge effectively -- there's no ship in the game that can dodge fire effectively when the engagement distance is under 8km. Arcing fire over islands is also an option with the Omaha sisters; they're not as good at it as e.g., Cleveland or Atlanta, but they can do it well enough that you should keep your eyes out for these opportunities as well.
  6. Murmansk.

    This. Murmansk is the prettiest of three rather homely sisters. If she's your only option, she'll serve the turn, but she ain't bringing home a pageant crown anytime soon.
  7. Premium Ship Review - VMF Murmansk

    Only USN 203mm AP (found on USN cruisers T7+) has superior characteristics. USN AP of other calibers is generally similar to that of other nations. As to the Omaha and Murmansk specifically, for some reason the Murmansk's AP has slight better penetration, even though she's actually an Omaha class ship that was loaned to the USSR during the war. AFAIK, while in service with the Soviet Navy, she used ammunition that was provided by the US, so there is no historical reason for the discrepancy.
  8. Thanks for the interest everyone. Looks like there are a number of good choices here. I'll do a little more research and pick one. Happy sailings!
  9. Looking for a clan mostly so the oil I earn is useful. Not looking to get into hardcore Team/Competitive play. I'm primiarily a solo player, but I wouldn't mind Divisioning up for Randoms now and then with Clan mates, and also for Operations. My Stats are public so look me up if this matters -- Global WR just under 55%. I enjoy playing different tiers and ships; I am not a specialist. I have a bunch of lines up to T8 and one T9 (Fletcher). Haven't really felt the urge to push up to T10 yet, but will probably do so eventually. 40-something. My politics and opinions on things outside of WoWs are my business and I don't want to hear about yours on Clan chat or in-game. I don't mind a little salty language as long as it doesn't get into racial, misogyistic, or religious stuff. I live East Coast US. I don't play every weeknight, but more evenings than not I get at least a game or two in. Probably 20 or so games on a typical weekend. I don't currently really use Discord, but I have an account there and I don't mind getting myself set up there if it's a clan requirement. Not interested in signing up for Teamspeak anything else other than Discord.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Sumner class DD's

    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.
  13. Mac Wrapper 2.0 Now Available

    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..
  14. 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.
  15. 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."