Jump to content

ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

Members
  • Content Сount

    270
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    15021
  • Clan

    [TWBNS]

Community Reputation

98 Good

About ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday 05/19/1957
  • Insignia
    [TWBNS]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Texas
  • Interests
    Military history, politics, swordsmanship, beer

Recent Profile Visitors

1,482 profile views
  1. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Here's why this rework sufferin sucks

    I read this in two ways. 1. Yes, it is a money grab. Everything WeeGee has done in the last two years has been. 2. The deadeye skill, along with the general top to bottom nerf of CA's is all about keeping those ships in the back in the early stages of the game. It may be deliberate because WeeGee may be unable to even pretend they have balanced submarines any other way than to keep the ships that can't fight back against them in the rear. Whether or not number 2 is correct, I really do not like where this game seems to be going.
  2. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Here's why this rework sufferin sucks

    Well, I'm going back to co-op, that is if I play much at all anymore. I have no interest in playing with this meta. Oh, and BTW, what the hell is up with the Heavy HE and SAP skill? Would someone please explain to me the principle that underlies the assumption that a change in ammunition type makes a cruiser 15% easier to spot? I must have been out the day they explained that in physics class.
  3. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Here's why this rework sufferin sucks

    Within the storm of rotten updates over the last couple of years, this last one is one of the worst. This new one is just going to aggravate the problems with the old meta and drive ships farther to the back. How dull. Thanks for nothing, WG.
  4. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Zao upgrade grind, are you guys kidding?

    You have a point. I just didn't spend the time to search for that info. I still don't know where I would find it. All it said on the combat missions screen was that it would improve the ship's performance on open water, so I expected good faith on the part of WG that it might actually do that. Silly me. I won't be doing that again. Nothing that decreases this ship's max range is going to improve it's open water performance one whit unless it is a really crazy buff to rudder shift, so I can't help feeling that I was lied to. BTW, I think that I ran into you last night in coop. Your user name is somewhat memorable.
  5. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Zao upgrade grind, are you guys kidding?

    Zao's AP is reasonably good in my experience but only at closer ranges, depending on the tier of the target. The Zao is not a brawler, so I like to keep the distance open and want all the range I can get. I get what you are saying, that its utility may depend on your play style and your mileage may vary, but for me it seems next to useless. I feel that I have wasted a lot of time on it, hence the resentful vibe.
  6. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Zao upgrade grind, are you guys kidding?

    After several days of grinding I finally got the Zao bridge upgrade. WG expects me to replace the gun fire control system mod 2, which increases my range by 16% for a mod that will end up decreasing it by 8% just because it also decreases dispersion by 7%? The dispersion on the Zao is just fine already, so I sure don't see any value in that. Things like this are why I quit this game for nearly a year. I swear that I will never grind for another reward. Here's a tip. A reward mod should meaningfully improve on already existing mods, not nerf them.
  7. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Sub. Wow just wow

    It isn't as if they ever listen to it. I made the decision to play less and spend no cash on WoW until I know whether or not I am going to remain with the game, and that may take quite some time. WG is teaching us a lot about how to deal with this sort of thing and none of it is good for them.
  8. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Why does this game have aircraft carriers?

    Thank you for that link. I believed that the Langley was the first aircraft carrier, and all of my books say that this is the case. I was unaware of the Wakamiya. ( A glorified seaplane tender, but a carrier nonetheless.) I appreciate it.
  9. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Why does this game have aircraft carriers?

    As fleet warships? In battle? Not a chance. Broad recon, maybe. Cleanup, killing off crippled ships, for sure. But involved in fleet battle? Never. That was pretty disingenuous, actually.
  10. I see. I was a casual player for a very long time. Now, three years into it, I retired and now have the time to really delve into all of this, and so I am just beginning to learn these technical aspects. I enjoy reading posts like yours now, because they suggest new things for me to look at and study.
  11. I saw a vid on You Tube not long ago in which it was posited that the main problem with the system WG uses to determine penetration and bounce is that, while WG likes to use the actual stats possessed by the ships and guns, the distances are compressed on the small maps, and WG isn't correcting for that. WG might do better to scale it more effectively, so that battleships aren't having to bow tank all the time.
  12. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Armor on the Puerto Rico is pretty darned good

    Can't blame you there.
  13. Here is what I found regarding the armor on this ship. The upshot is that if you are in a cruiser yourself, you can pretty much forget about citting her. The armor The Puerto Rico presents very strong armor protection and retains the underwater citadel combined with a spaced armor that was already on the Alaska. The bow section The external plating of the bow is the classic 27 mm of armor that you can find on all U.S. heavy cruisers. This will allow you to bounce 381 mm AP shells and under. Inside the bow, there is a first casemate with 38 mm of armor. Just under it, there is a nice 305 mm thick bulkhead as well as the citadel’s athwartship (surrounded in black). There is, then, the classic armor tapering of U.S. warships with the lower parts of the athwartship being 254 mm thick and then 76 mm thick. There are also 2 229 mm thick casemates on the sides to protect the internal citadel from shells that would slip between the main belt and the athwartship. The middle section The deck of the Puerto Rico is 38 mm thick giving her protection to the more and more frequent capacity to overmatch 30 mm platings that battleships have in high tier. The sides are, sadly, “only” 30 mm thick so still vulnerable to overmatch from 431 mm shells and above. The Main belt is 254 mm thick for the biggest part but there is also a small 216 mm section. When it comes to the citadel protection, the sides are 57 mm thick. It is a way better protection than the Alaska with her 229 mm main belt and 26 mm citadel side armor. With cruisers, I would say that you can forget about scoring a citadel on this ship. The horizontal protection is decent with a 119 mm main armor deck and 19 mm citadel deck. Now, while the armor thickness isn’t great, since the citadel is quite deep, the ship MIGHT have a good protection against AP bombs. The stern section As usual, the stern is the exact same as the bow with 27 mm external plating. Just like on the bow, there is first the 38 mm casemate and then we have the 305 mm bulkhead with the citadel’s athwartship that then tapers to 254 mm and finally 76 mm of armor deep below the waterline.
  14. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Is it just me?

    Here is what I found regarding the armor on this ship. The upshot is that if you are in a cruiser yourself, you can pretty much forget about citting her. The armor The Puerto Rico presents very strong armor protection and retains the underwater citadel combined with a spaced armor that was already on the Alaska. The bow section The external plating of the bow is the classic 27 mm of armor that you can find on all U.S. heavy cruisers. This will allow you to bounce 381 mm AP shells and under. Inside the bow, there is a first casemate with 38 mm of armor. Just under it, there is a nice 305 mm thick bulkhead as well as the citadel’s athwartship (surrounded in black). There is, then, the classic armor tapering of U.S. warships with the lower parts of the athwartship being 254 mm thick and then 76 mm thick. There are also 2 229 mm thick casemates on the sides to protect the internal citadel from shells that would slip between the main belt and the athwartship. The middle section The deck of the Puerto Rico is 38 mm thick giving her protection to the more and more frequent capacity to overmatch 30 mm platings that battleships have in high tier. The sides are, sadly, “only” 30 mm thick so still vulnerable to overmatch from 431 mm shells and above. The Main belt is 254 mm thick for the biggest part but there is also a small 216 mm section. When it comes to the citadel protection, the sides are 57 mm thick. It is a way better protection than the Alaska with her 229 mm main belt and 26 mm citadel side armor. With cruisers, I would say that you can forget about scoring a citadel on this ship. The horizontal protection is decent with a 119 mm main armor deck and 19 mm citadel deck. Now, while the armor thickness isn’t great, since the citadel is quite deep, the ship MIGHT have a good protection against AP bombs. The stern section As usual, the stern is the exact same as the bow with 27 mm external plating. Just like on the bow, there is first the 38 mm casemate and then we have the 305 mm bulkhead with the citadel’s athwartship that then tapers to 254 mm and finally 76 mm of armor deep below the waterline.
  15. ButterfingersMcKlutzsky

    Cost of Puerto Rico is Fair!

    Actually, my valuations were off because I keep forgetting that the Alaska is a tier IX ship, so I edited that comment to make myself appear less stupid. The OP is likely right in terms of the relative value of the pixelship itself, although I will allow my statement about the Alaska's performance to stand. I have some quarrels with WG over the manner in which this deal went down, but I will retract that low valuation.
×