Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

846 Excellent

About yashma

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


Recent Profile Visitors

1,384 profile views
  1. A turret traverse buff would be nice, but I think a concealment buff would be pretty useless. For randoms the Henri plays like a big Soviet DD and spends most of its time spotted and firing its guns. As far as competitive is concerned, it would take a drastic buff to allow the Henri to ever rival the Zao as a flanking cruiser. Clans that want to use the Henri's speed are going to use the Henri regardless of its concealment.
  2. Here...watch this video. It clearly shows that your team loses points for a team kill in Clan Battles. You're complaining about a none issue.
  3. USS Alaska - Dev Blog!

    Oh I know....but if you go down that route you have to take into account typical MM for Tier 9, which invariably means the Alaska will spend most of her time in T10 battles where the majority of ships will be able to lol pen her bow.
  4. I can see that logic, and that's probably the reason WG decided to implement the feature. That being said, I still maintain winning by zeroing the opponent isn't fun for either side, and if nothing else WG should at least make the experience of winning the battle enjoyable. Not to mention, while I hate losing, I hate losing and doing no damage even more. If I'm going to lose, I want to go down in a blaze of glory knowing I did my absolute best to turn it around. Nothing more frustrating than being on full health with out much damage done when the battle is over because the lemming train on the other side of the map got obliterated so fast your team was zeroed before you had the chance to contribute.
  5. USS Alaska - Dev Blog!

    I have actually gone through and compiled that list The list of ships the Alaska can bow tank is considerably smaller than the list of ships she can't bow tank. Furthermore, the nature of Tier 9 MM means the majority of the time the Alaska will find herself in the Tier 8-10 MM bracket....and just in that bracket alone there are over twice as many ships that lol pen the Alaska as there are that can't. Having a 27mm bow can be an advantage, but it is far too situational to be consistently useful. Even if you find yourself in a position where you can bow tank a 15inch armed BB, odds are there is going to be another bigger gunned BB in the area that will be able to blap you through the nose. Obviously it's better to have a 27mm bow than not to have one....but in the grand scheme of things I don't think it makes a huge difference.
  6. I've played more battles in the Conqueror than you have. I think it's a decent ship, but I also think you're over selling its strengths.
  7. Except that is actually not possible...short of getting some weird bug. 1. It is impossible for one fire to burn for 20k damage, let alone 30k....a full duration fire on the Kurfurst can come close if he's not running BoS, but good luck citdeling one with HE. 2A. HE citadels are incredibly rare and you'll almost never do more than 2400 damage with one shell. HE citadels are too rare to really be a factor. 2B. The only ships you can citadel with HE are a select number of cruisers....and no fire set on a cruiser will ever break 7k.....let alone approach the "20k to 30k" damage. The point of my original post was that I think you're over valuing the power of the Conqueror....but I also had to jump in and point out that your claim of doing all that with one shell is technically impossible.
  8. That's not a real solution though. The reason I hate winning matches by zeroing the opponent is not the lost credits and XP.....it's the fact the game is over before I can actually enjoy the fact I'm playing a game. I'd just prefer they get rid of the feature entirely and if a team ever ended up on 0 points, well then they'd just be on zero points and the game continues on until one team reaches 1000 or loses all their ships.
  9. You specifically said you could do all of that with "one shell".
  10. A couple things wrong with that statement. 1. The Conqueror only has an alpha of 7200. Unless you are citadeling one of a select few cruisers or get a lucky "double dip" bug, 419mm Conqueror HE will never do more than 2,376 damage. Thanks to damage saturation it often does less. 2. No single fire in the game could possibly burn for 30k damage. The absolute maximum fire damage possible is around 19,000, and only against a Kurfurst running survivability expert. A Kurfurst running BoS and India Yankee flags can reduce that to around 12k damage. *Not to mention all fire damage is 100% healable. 3. While you're not strictly wrong about the Conqueror having a 48% fire chance....keep in mind that that number is severely reduced by high tier fire resistance coefficients and that the Conqueror's actual fire chance can be as low as around 20% when firing at full fire prevention build Tier 10 ships. 4. Setting BBs on fire won't win you a battle unless those BBs also end up dying. I am of the unpopular opinion that HE spam actually does have some positive impact on dictating the pace of the battle....but keep in mind that by its nature HE + fire damage is not the equivalent of raw AP damage. Just because you get higher damage totals shooting HE does not mean you are doing higher effective damage. For instance, one 13k citadel on a BB is fire more valuable than a couple of fires for 30k.
  11. USS Alaska - Dev Blog!

    I think I'm just going to save that quote you linked to my personal collection for later usage.
  12. Alaska HP question?

    But that is all based on the limits set by a treaty that no longer existed at the time the Alaska was built, hence the entire reason I set my example in an alternate reality with no Washington Naval Treaty. Short of arbitrarily designating a ship based on a fixed limit set by a treaty, you need to find an alternate way of classifying the distinction between cruisers and battlecruisers, and if you would just prefer to go by the arbitrary designations, the Alaska was officially classed as a "CB" and is henceforth not a battlecruiser. So to be more direct.....with out referencing any specific numbers, at what point does a cruiser stop being an up gunned cruiser....and turn into a battleship? If your definition of a battlecruiser is simply a "cruiser hunter" then why weren't the first 8 inch armed cruisers consider battlecruisers, and why don't you consider the Graff Spee to be a battlecruiser? What happens if every nation in the world started building 12inch armed cruisers similar to the Alaska.....would the Alaska magically stop being a battlecruiser after a critical mass was reached? Given that at the time the Alaska was built, contemporary BBs were commonly fitted with 16inch guns, while a select few were equipped with 18 inch guns and some German napkin drawings even called for 20 inch guns.....12 inch guns were just no longer up to BB caliber by the late 40's early 50's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there has not been a single battleship built after the Alaska with 12 inch guns. *edit I'd even go so far as to claim there has not been single post treaty BB made 12 inch guns. The Scharnhorst is perhaps the closest example, but it's worth noting it was never intended to have 11 inch guns in the first place and was supposed to be fitted with more standard 15 inch guns.
  13. Alaska HP question?

    Your definition is too broad though and does not do enough to distinguish between a purpose built "battlecruiser" and the simple evolution of a heavy cruisers in the post treaty era. Let's say hypothetically in an alternate universe I am dictator for life of some Banana Republic. I am in the midst of a naval arms race with my next door neighbor. One day one of my admirals walks up and informs me our rivals have just laid down a new class of cruiser armed with 180mm guns and a revolutionary high speed hull that severely outclass our existing fleet of 152mm gunned cruisers. He recommends we start design on a new batch of 203mm armed heavy cruisers to counter the new threat. Our new class of cruisers are designed to outgun the latest cruisers in the enemy's fleet, with improved armor to better resist 180mm guns and improved speed to match the rumored performance of the new enemy cruiser. At what point does our new cruiser stop being a "cruiser" and turn into a battlecruiser? In this hypothetical scenario there is no treaty to arbitrarily define ship types based on gun caliber, and our entire modus operandi was to simply build a better cruiser than our rivals....and yet it tics the boxes of your "battlecruiser" definition. I just used an alternate reality with 180mm guns and 203mm guns as a means of side stepping the stigma caused by the WNT of ships being defined by caliber.
  14. Alaska HP question?

    I just don't see the point of not referring to the Alaska by her official designation. You can argue CBs and CCs are fundamentally the same thing....but why insist on calling her a CC when her official hull designation is a CB?