Jump to content

JunkwaffelXXI

Members
  • Content Сount

    264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12392
  • Clan

    [TWBNS]

Community Reputation

88 Good

About JunkwaffelXXI

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

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,248 profile views
  1. JunkwaffelXXI

    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.
  2. JunkwaffelXXI

    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.
  3. JunkwaffelXXI

    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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. JunkwaffelXXI

    Armor on the Puerto Rico is pretty darned good

    Can't blame you there.
  7. 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.
  8. JunkwaffelXXI

    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.
  9. JunkwaffelXXI

    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.
  10. JunkwaffelXXI

    Cost of Puerto Rico is Fair!

    The price is not the issue. Truth is that you could take a tier IX Alaska that you could get for $77 and expect to do as well in a tier X match as you would in a PR. The issue is that WG got a lot of people roped into buying it, some of them at twice what it is worth, after having given them to understand that getting it free was a plausible possibility. If I fault WG for anything in this fiasco, it is that.
  11. JunkwaffelXXI

    The Church of Hindenburg

    Ok, I'll bite. I think that the truth about the Hindenburg is that it can do everything, but doesn't shine at anything. It turns relatively well, and has reasonable firepower. Has torps but they are nothing special, and with the right build its AA is pretty good. It is a classic Jack of all Trades but Master of None. That said, I do love my Hindy, as it is a singularly versatile vessel and a good brawler. I am, however, also beginning to warm up to my Zao. She is a great fire starter.
  12. Any way you cut it, that coupon IS a winner.
  13. JunkwaffelXXI

    I will not be buying premium anymore

    Yeah, that is the bright spot in all of this, and the reason that I just refuse to get angry about it. A gift is a gift. And now I hear that WG is offering refunds of the first 6000 dubs to disgruntled players, so its all good.
  14. JunkwaffelXXI

    Why does this game have aircraft carriers?

    Pls delete this.
  15. JunkwaffelXXI

    Why does this game have aircraft carriers?

    Ok, point taken, some players do want them, to be sure. The distinction you are making is exactly why I said that I liked what you had to say. Myself, I would play a lot more if I could lock CV's out of my space, and if I could do that, then I wouldn't care that some others like to play them. Perhaps if some further experimentation were to be applied, a game meta better suited to CV's may be developed, and there would be more than one mode of PvP play. And there is no question that you are correct that CV's cannot be balanced. How can they be balanced when their entire reason for existing was to make all the other classes of ships obsolete for any purpose other than support? You know, one of the big mistakes that the IJN made during WWII was that they had read Mahan, and were continually trying to draw the USN into a single, huge fleet engagement dominated by the big BB's that would decide everything, and were continually disappointed because of the presence of US carriers. The presence of CV's in normal PvP disrupts the play for the surface ships in much the same way.
×