Jump to content

Lord_Magus

Members
  • Content Сount

    2,470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [VVV]

Community Reputation

433 Excellent

1 Follower

About Lord_Magus

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,019 profile views
  1. Lord_Magus

    re: Proposed changes to HMS Hood

    I tend to think that Hood's superior autobounce angles (which are being retained) are more important than the short fuse when it comes to nuking cruisers. And remember, when a cruiser thinks he's angled enough to bounce you it means that the shell will stay inside his hull longer so that the longer fuse won't matter and you'll still cit him. That said I'd prefer if Hood just got a muzzle velocity buff to the correct 752m/s while leaving the fuse alone. That would make her a bit more able to pen the citadels of BBs without sacrificing even slightly in the ability to nuke cruisers. I'd also consider a slight reload buff.
  2. While it's good for it to be uniform, personally I think the 45s fire duration for supercruisers was fine. And that Kronshtadt didn't really need to be nerfed, and neither does Alaska based on what CCs have shown in videos and said about her. And Azuma looks to already be the least tanky of the supercruisers. Stalingrad does need some sort of nerf, but I don't think this was the right one. Either a nerf to the 2.65 sigma or to the HE shells (the ones actually built for her guns had a muzzle velocity of 700m/s).
  3. Lord_Magus

    Yahagi much?

    The pitiful AP shells (identical to those of T2 Chikuma) ought to at least get a buff to their krupp so that they can actually pen something. ASM0 like on Yūbari also needs to happen. And given that Yahagi clearly has reload boxes for her torps (just like on all the IJN DDs that were given the TRB consumable) she ought to get it too.
  4. Lord_Magus

    Yahagi much?

    Something that needs to be pointed out regarding Yahagi that her dual-purpose secondaries currently are completely wrong. There was never such a thing as a "76 mm/60 Type89". Agano class cruisers had 2x2 8cm/60 Type 98. While the 76mm caliber is correct, I'll also point out that other IJN ships with 76mm guns currently have them listed in-game as 80mm, in line with the official IJN designations that rounded up to 8cm. I don't think this has any impact on their HE pen though, since the shells are still 76mm. The problem with Yahagi's secondaries are that the stats got copy-pasted from stock Furutaka's 80mm/40 Type 3 guns. 3.5s reload and 680m/s muzzle velocity. But the 8cm/60 Type 98 actually had a 2.4s reload and 920m/s muzzle velocity. I'm under no illusion that this would result in a secondary built Yahagi being viable or something, but the stats need to be right. It should also be pointed out that 2.4s reflects the shell hoists' ability to provide 25 rounds/min to each gun. The ready ammo in the mounts was capable of being fired twice as fast as the shell hoists could keep up with. I'm also of the opinion that the 3.5km AA range and 20.8 DPS for these guns is too low. I'd suggest 4.5km and 35 DPS would be more in line with their historical rate of fire and shell velocity. These should certainly be better AA guns than upgraded Furutaka's 120mm/40 Type 10 AA guns, but currently they're worse.
  5. Lord_Magus

    The A-Poi-calypse is Coming

    With regard to the "war crime" topic, was in the sinking destroyer transports that Yudachi closed in to fire on, or men who had already abandoned ship? The latter is clearly a war crime, but continuing to fire on a sinking warship is not. If a warship has not signaled surrender, it's considered fair game even if it's sinking. A sinking warship is often still capable of firing, and it's considered perfectly legitimate to make sure it actually sinks rather than allowing damage control crews to possibly stop the flooding.
  6. Having the catapult toss out 6 cat fighters in a row is is ridiculously immersion-breaking too.
  7. Actually République, Yamato and Conqueror will see their AA effectiveness greatly reduced. Because they don't have short range AA auras. Only mid and long range. Which is another illustration of how backwards AA is in this rework. Historically small-caliber AA guns were the least effective. The only reason ships even carried them was because you could mount them almost literally anywhere.
  8. Lord_Magus

    So played the new CV's

    Because of course, the only options are the current system and what's being tested now. While the skill floor of CVs certainly needed to lowered by any rework, that doesn't mean they needed to be made idiot-proof. DDs are not idiot-proof. CLs are not idiot-proof. BBs are not idiot-proof. In all of those classes you can get punished hard for making mistakes. But with the CV rework, the only punishment for mistakes by the CV player are missing out on some damage and having to switch to rocket attackers for the next run in the (at least at T10 very unlikely) event your entire torp bomber squadron gets shot down. Then when you're done with the rockets your TBs will be ready to go again, with the bonus that your rockets probably broke a bunch of the target's AA guns. Having unlimited bomber reserves for CVs is a disastrously bad idea. The neutering of AA makes it even worse.
  9. Lord_Magus

    So played the new CV's

    This x1000. As I said in a previous topic, a CV with infinite planes is as ridiculous as a BB with infinite HP.
  10. If a full AA spec Minotaur can only shoot down 20 planes, AA is definitely not in a good place.
  11. Lord_Magus

    The CV change isn't just wrong, it's berserk.

    He just put up another video where he plays a full AA spec Minotaur. He manages to shoot down a whopping 20 planes over the course of the battle and the CV is pretty much able to drop him with impunity. This CV rework is already dead on arrival. WG needs to realize this and put its implementation on hold until they can make it work.
  12. Lord_Magus

    The CV change isn't just wrong, it's berserk.

    The issue is less the amount of damage they can do than the fact that the reworked CVs strike with even more impunity than the old RTS versions did. There's literally no consequence to a CV throwing his planes at the ships with the strongest AA. Not only has AA been nerfed significantly (the inability to extend AA range means area defense is practically no longer a thing, and anything that lacks DFAA and/or a catapult fighter can barely even do self-defense), the infinite aircraft reserves CVs now get means that it doesn't even matter if a squadron gets wiped out. There's not even any significant delay in launching the replacement squadron to strike again. Giving a CV infinite planes is like giving a BB infinite HP. It's nuts.
  13. It's almost as if bad changes get a very negative response from players. Anyway, this fire duration change on Alaska and Azuma is a bad idea. Fire duration should not be a balance stat. If Alaska and Azuma get this change then it should be applied to Kronshtadt and Stalingrad as well. It should either be standard to CBs or not happen at all. Personally I'd say that also CBs should officially be made a separate class from CL/CAs. There's going to be enough of them in the game that having the MM try to avoid only one team having them shouldn't increase queue times too much.
  14. I don't see how many CVs idiot-proof is a good thing. No ship should be idiot-proof, least of all the ones that can cause damage without risk of return fire.
  15. Which means the difference between having a bad CV player on one team and a good CV player on the other will be just as big as before the rework.
×