Jump to content

Battleship_Elisabeth

Members
  • Content Сount

    5,662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5806
  • Clan

    [KNMSU]

Community Reputation

3,928 Superb

About Battleship_Elisabeth

Profile Information

  • Location
    Northern California

Recent Profile Visitors

4,007 profile views
  1. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Italian tier X cruiser

    I find creeping smoke to be an annoyance to use, and of very low deterrent value. I feel very strongly that this tech tree is essentially garbage time design where WG has gone to the castoff bin of bad ideas to cobble together what amounts to a throw-away tree. It's early yet, but that's my gut reaction.
  2. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Italian tier X cruiser

    My guess is a light/heavy armor mid tier swap (essentially going from really wimpy armor to the best cruiser armor in the game), accurate, high muzzle velocity guns with slow traverse and low individual shell damage, a distinct lack of torpedoes in the late tiers, making them fully gun reliant, no radar, but strong hydro throughout the tree. Poor AA. Good concealment. I don't buy off on the notion that every tree needs some over-the-top gimmick. American battleships, as an example, are just kind of middle of the road on everything (except very late AA). Japanese cruisers have good HE, but it's not, like, they're the ONLY tree with HE or something. IMO, Wargaming has become far too focused on schtick over substance. You can design a proper, unique-feeling tree without loading the ships down with some dumb, self-serving mechanic that means they now have to have their core attributes nerfed in order to achieve balance. Then again, is this company really doing much of anything at all lately that isn't hovering in the no man's land between "lame" and "completely bat-**** crazy"...? I would argue: no.
  3. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Italian tier X cruiser

    I'm really disliking the whole smoke thing. Wasn't an entire line of smoking British cruisers enough? Why do we need another one?
  4. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Ranked Sprints show how flawed regular ranked is.

    I will never, ever rank out in a regular season. It's just not happening.
  5. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Italian tier X cruiser

  6. Battleship_Elisabeth

    "Super"Cruisers - anyone else?

    I totally agree with this. Battlecruisers were the ultimate scouts - the most modern versions (especially in WWI) could only be caught and killed by opposing BCs. Their entire purpose (other than co-opted roles like commerce raiding) was to serve as the heavyweight eyes of the fleet, directly supporting light cruisers to report on the enemy's position, as well as (optimistically) picking off stragglers, and deterring/denying opposing BCs from completing their own reconnaissance. Pretty much none of that is valid in WoWs. The maps are too small and too campy for the kind of extended, running engagements that these ships were designed for. In snipe-fests, they get shot through the bow and deleted. As flankers, they get chased by battleships that are often just as fast as they are and overwhelmed. There isn't really "independent action" in this game - there aren't enough opportunities to properly utilize the advantages a BC might possess, and far too many times when their weaknesses are all too evident. Jacky Fisher would be appalled to watch Notser sitting in his Siegfried, stationary behind a rock, taking pot-shots. It's just incredibly stupid.
  7. Battleship_Elisabeth

    "Super"Cruisers - anyone else?

    I find the entire concept largely stupid. While I always felt from the start that battlecruisers belonged in their own sub-classification, they make more sense as battleships than cruisers (BCs were capital ships, cruisers aren't; BCs were in many ways the forerunners to the fast battleship; cruisers weren't, etc.). The problem here is that the decision-making associated with the placement of these vessels has absolutely zero to do with balance, and everything to do with farming them for maximum dollars. WG recognizes that a pretty healthy cut of the playerbase is obsessed with battlecruisers and will buy them regardless of the cost. Why "properly" place them as BBs in tiers 6/7/8 when you can reap absurd bucks at tier 9/10?
  8. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Why is Friesland flying a Polish naval ensign?

    No, no. It's a portal to the cat dimension.
  9. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Summer Savings Deals PSA (will be updated daily).

    I'd file a ticket.
  10. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Italian tier X cruiser

    Three reasons: 1) Prestige. This is essentially tantamount to saying that the apex of real Italian heavy cruiser design was inferior to entries by competing nations. 2) Balance. The ship may need to be artificially nerfed in several ways to make it work at tier 7. 3) Clownish paper designs. It's arguable that an entire tier of fakey nonsense could have been eliminated by correctly tiering Zara.
  11. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Summer Savings Deals PSA (will be updated daily).

    One thing I forgot to add is that Vanguard has an EXCEEDINGLY trollish bow. I was just point-blank against a Massachusetts (about 2km or less) for a good 3 minutes with him completely unable to pen my bow.
  12. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Summer Savings Deals PSA (will be updated daily).

    Vanguard IS worth it (unlike Hood). She's good good AP and HE, decent range, she can bow tank alright, she's fast, has a very, very responsive helm, and the AA is strong.
  13. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Italian tier X cruiser

    Yeah, you can put me decidedly in the camp of "insulted by this decision." Zara was a tier 8. So, for that matter, was KGV. It's the British battleship tree all freaking over again.
  14. Battleship_Elisabeth

    RIPPED OFF

    Wow, this thread.
  15. Battleship_Elisabeth

    Why is Friesland flying a Polish naval ensign?

    Lol. I fully support your crusade, as I want nothing more than to see additional (proper) flags in the game (and, particularly, the HSF jack flying over the early German ships).
×