Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

168 Valued poster

About Aristotle83

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Aristotle83

    An Alternate WWII

    IMO the Germans did enough to beat the USSR many times over strictly militarily. The Germans leaders being Nazis with the goal of murdering the USSR popualtion meant the Soviet people would never give up like their WW1 Russian counterparts who had far less of a stake in the wars outcome. Also much is made of the Germans being trapped in the winter outside of Moscow and Leningrad but spring 1942 came and the Germans still had the ability to take the major Soviet cities but opted instead to go south where they got into trouble. The point is I don't think there was really much of a higher ceiling the Germans could have reached against the Soviets if we throw out the outside variables of the US joining the war etc.
  2. Aristotle83

    Russian bias? Not with the pre-dreadnoughts

    Oh no you're absolutley right in terms of them fitting it in the game, I left because of frustrations over their failure to do this we're on the same page here I'm explaining their perspective not calling it their own. Early on in the game they were paying attention to the small tiers but made almost no battleships or heavy armed cruisers. They could have made Borodino but Mikasa's main reason for being in the game is her existing IMO. In terms of the pre dreadnoughts and armored cruisers(St Louis is a CA but I'm talking the big gunned ones St Louis has armanet typically found on CP) the arguments they gave(that I've heard people say not them themselves) is not being happy with Mikasa small main battery and no manual secondaries. A they have successfully done manual secondaries in mobile WOWS and it looks like it works just fine so I have no idea why they won't do that on PC and B Frustrations with Mikasa and the base 6 inch secondaries wouldn't be relevant to the latter semi dreadnoughts and armored cruisers with bigger secondaries which would be unique if nothing else. While the system makes the earlier eras not worth making ships for even though this is circular logic because they created they copypastad the WOT tier system. They also copypasted the WOT tier system even though tank history is much shorter and as a result the 19th century ships(they have Olympia from 1898 you know what I mean though) wouldn't fit in a tier system.
  3. Aristotle83

    Russian bias? Not with the pre-dreadnoughts

    In terms of industrial battles. There's very few actions between large surface combatants during the industrial era never mind whole fleets. In terms of age of sail you're correct there's 300 years of rich history there even though some of the early details are fuzzy. But a lot of the people here just are interested in the iron and steel era. In terms of Mikasa being proof of non Russian bias that's simply not the case. Mikasa still exists and Tsushima was a Japanese victory. WG's pro Russian bias is nothing compared to their bias against pre dreadnoughts and armored cruisers.
  4. Aristotle83

    Tier 11 what do you all think?

    Big part of why I left the game. Game was already alienating the history crowd with it's focus on paper ships and instead of expanding into pre dreadnoughts and armored cruisers they going to expand to imagination ships? It's really just pouring additional salt on the wound. This game had incredible potential to recreate history and while that potential kept a lot of us around the way things turned out is really just a shame.
  5. Aristotle83

    Best tier VI battleship

    I remember in the beginning I voted Warspite but Arizona always won this poll. Now I've finally been converted to team Arizona and Warspite wins.
  6. Aristotle83

    Forcing people to play T6-T7 for Ranked

    Meanwhile lower tier players who favor the earlier eras get like 1 new ship every few years. Obviously who prefers what tiers is a matter of personal preference. But the lower tiers and even the middle ones get far less support than the higher ones. The game is overwhelmingly catered to people who love the napkin paper/fantasty ships at the higher tiers.
  7. This is nonsense. WG ignores the lower tiers and releases a lower tier premium once every few years if that. They are not encouraging you to play lower tier ships just because a higher tier ship costs more to use you also get more from using it.
  8. Aristotle83

    Pacific war ships (Chile 1881-1879)

    I want earlier ships but I think Majestic and late 1890s is absolute limit the ironclad era needs it's own game cause things changed so fast so often. Could incorporate late Age of Sail as gunwise the last few decades of age of sail has more in common with ironclads than ironclads do with the pre dreadnought era onwards. WOWS and it's sisters are set up around the WOT formula and they're really all 20th century game, planes and tanks weren't around in the 19th century so only WOWS is in a position where it doesn't have enough room to expand. I do think early 1890s Chile CA's Esmerelda and O Higgins can fit at T1 or T2 as CA's they were pretty good. 2-4 8 inch guns,10-16 6 inch guns, good protection, 22ish knots. O Higgins good comp for USS Olympia. There's 4 tiers left for armored cruisers since 5 is where treaty starts and think thats enough for most armored cruisers. With BB's Mikasa should have probably been a T1 and I just see no room. Armored cruisers and pre dreadnoughts are the last frontier for this game IMO.
  9. Aristotle83

    [WIP] RN Battlecruiser Arc

    Only disagreement is the beginning think CB's should be paired with their BB equivilant and while the Germans didn't match their CB and BB calibers after Nassau and Von Der Tam the UK did. So IMO should be the 12 inche CB with Dreadnought and Bellerophon, early 13.5 inch CB with Orion at 4 etc. After that agree with everything you get up to T8 with G3 then they do fantasy for 9 and 10(would like N3s but N3s are BB's and don't think they'll give away a ship people will want for free when they don't have to). Princess Royal would be strong at T4 but I mean so is Orion strongest 4TP ships in the game with Kaiser and Konig 13.8 inch Mackensen with Bayern cause there's no 15 inch battlecruiser. CB's would only be OP at T3 cause the tier has been neglected.
  10. Aristotle83

    Russian Navy

    Their subs caused several of the bloodiest sinkings in history when the Germans were evacuating the Baltic. Not that those were battles but that's what comes to mind and I recall their subs were really capable for the WW2 era(though this might be cause they were building quality over quanity cause they didn't need many). While the Soviets were a great power unlike Imperial Russia this was solely based on their land army(pre cold war and above water units). In terms of non submarine naval power their peers were Spain and Argentina and the Kirovs were the heaviest surface unit the Soviets finished between the revolution and the 1980s. So unlike in WW1 they didn't really have many units for which the Germans would need to fight(and neither did the Germans really). In WW1 it was the opposite their fleet might have seen the most action of any belligerent between the Baltic and Black Sea as these were the least lopsided naval fronts.
  11. Aristotle83

    How feasible are the high tier Italian BBs?

    Of the 7 great powers of WW2 Italy's really the only one that didn't have concrete plans for a next generation BB that were disrupted(Montana,A-150,Lion, H, Alsace,.Soyuz) so the high tiers of an Italian line were always going to require more fantasy/tissue paper ships. They were really the only one that built or planned to build their treaty allowance and called it a day without angling for afterward.
  12. Aristotle83

    Austro hungarian cruisers

    I want this badly but the issue is that Austro-Hungarian ships by definition are going to be low tier. Furthermore the best AH cruisers are armored cruisers which with the exception of Saint Louis(which has a CL battery) have been excluded from WOWs similar to the pre dreadnoughts cause they mostly had mixed batterys. Seconaries don't matter in WOWS(except mobile) and on pre dreadnoughts and armored cruisers they are a big part of the ships firepower. Besides low tier the main reason pre dreadnoughts have not been added seems to be the 4 gun main(and thus usable) battery and while there's some CA's that had a 6+gun main battery the Austro-Hungarian CA's main battery is in the other direction at 2 guns. Even if they had a larger main battery there also seems to be an aversion to guns larger than 6 inches at the lower tiers as the best armored cruisers with with large batterys of large guns particularly French and a few UK CA's were excluded. WG's starts pretending CA's exist only with after the Washington Naval Treaty at which point AH is gone. In terms of the other cruisers while there's less obsctacles they'd still be low tier and WG has not been willing to invest in low tier ships outside of tech trees since the early days of the game. T5 is the lowest tier they make premiums for(as they've created a pricing system where they can't make money at lower tiers) and they do that very rarely. Dreadnought is the only exception and Dreadnought is a special case because it's an iconic ship. The most likely AH ships to be added would be the paper BB Monarch as their the highest tier AH ship you could make and people have been asking for them for years. If subs get added can also see some of the latter AH U-Boats(some of the unfinished paper ones look pretty good) eventually getting in the game as part of a Euro line. If pre dreadnoughts get added someday Radetzkys are among the best and you'd imagine would be among those added. Another possibility that's crossed my mind is them doing a Hungarina themed VU rework with Saint Islan but besides Monarch there's nothing AH had that could be put above T5..
  13. The difference in speed wasn't that extensive 6-7 knots. The difference in strength size and construction was massive and the size is going to be more of an advantage to her than a disadvatange. Anyhow all ships were designed specifically to survive that sort of scenario and I don't know why we'd doubt their ability to survive a scenario because Titanic sank in a collision scenario it was just not prepared for because it was a freak accident. Warships especially BB's are so compartmentalized it's just very difficult for flooding from even the Titanics scenario to spread throughout the ship nm a more typical collision. Warships were specifically designed to absorb damage and stay afloat in wartime scenarios. The only peacetime scenario BB's were really vuinerable against was blowing up due to some mistake(which in WW1 might have led to more BB sinkings than actual combat).
  14. Well the front of a ship is specifically designed to deal with such collisions not just with icebergs but with anything. The typical case study is Arizona which survived a head on iceberg collission despite being about half the width and legnth of Titanic and being made of the weaker iron. Also in terms of torpedos we got to remember battleships especially in WW1 were pretty good at surviving those too. And quite a few ocean liners survived torpedo hits from U-Boats as well even if that might be more luck based. In terms of their inability to see the iceberg and avoid collisison what you're saying makes sense just saying it doesn't matter cause BB's would easily survive as the far more vulnerable Titanic likely would have with any changes to the collision it experienced.
  15. Taking damage isn't the same as sinking. Running aground is a different story as well. While I recall the Great Eastern was very watertight it was also built in the very beginning of the industrial age.