Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

29 Neutral

About Radical_20

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia
  1. A third video... The Iowa. Comments welcome. https://youtu.be/CValBEQ93HE
  2. Notser on CV rework

    Personally, I more-or-less like the current CV play style. It could use tweaking, for sure, but it was a decent compromise between "fire and watch" of guns/torpedoes, and "first person shooter" of flying each individual plane. What are aircraft carriers....? They are carriers of aircraft. To me, Wargaming started out badly with different size and make-up of a carrier's air wing. It should have been exactly the same (per tier) across nations. Then the "flavor" could have come in subtle (and I *DO* mean subtle) changes to the aircraft themselves. For example, japan could have had faster, but less armored fighters compared to the American slower, but more durable fighters. While trying to come up with a "flavor" for a nation's ships, the execution of that idea was poorly executed. Different size and make up of the air wing caused too radical of a difference in capabilities and game strategies. Then the strafe: A poor idea. Sure, it may have added excitement to the game-play, but it wasn't necessary. It threw another RNG element on top of so many other factors. CV gameplay, at least my observance, became too erratic. Too unpredictable from game to game. If a CV player started the game, and got off 1 or 2 good strafes, he/she put the other player at an extreme disadvantage. Too much depended on the early roles of the RNG. From one game to the next, a CV player could do well, or poor, or awesome, or pathetic. And all seemed to boil down to the early confrontations between planes. This, I believe, led to player frustration. From one game to the next, it was difficult to learn anything. What worked one game, wouldn't work the next. So learning to play, advancing your skills wasn't incremental, wasn't additive. Meaning, "I learned this, now I can apply it going forward. Next, I have to improve that to add to it, and improve my overall CV gameplay." I've watched Notser's video, and I do not know what the future holds. I do not know whether I will like, or dislike, the new CV game-play style. We'll see. I hope it's not too "first person shooter-y".
  3. What ship should Bill Halsey captain?

    Looking at his talents, (thanks again, IfYouSeeKhaos) Double-strike and Confederate, he needs to be in a ship that is like to get achieve those. Double-Strike: I don't know about y'all, but I've never gotten a double-strike. I have seen it done, but very, very rarely. So the odds of taking advantage of this is extremely low.. (IMHO) Confederate: I've gotten confederate 21 times. Last time in a cruiser. But that's no indicator, I've been grinding the American cruisers for a while now. So I ask this esteemed group.... what ship types are most likely to get Double-strikes and/or Confederate? Right now, I'm leaning towards putting him in either the Missouri, or the Alaska when it comes out. But somehow, the Alaska just "doesn't feel right." Y'know...?
  4. What ship should Bill Halsey captain?

    Interesting ideas.. I usually don't move my captains from ship to ship, it's just my playing style. So I have to pick a good ship. I might make an exception and put him on my Missouri. Maybe the Alaska when it comes out. I don't have the Fletcher or Gearing yet. I'm getting close to getting the Salem. I didn't know that.. thanks.
  5. I just finished the campaign tonight. And now Bill Halsey is a captain in my reserve. I wonder just what ship I should put him in.... What ship would take the best advantage of his special skills? BTW.... what are his special skills. I re-watched the video introducing him to the game, and they spoke of his talents; red tracers, etcetera, but not any enhanced skills, ie "Jack of All Trades" for Jack Dunkirk, etcetera. Historically, I thought it might be nice to put him in my Enterprise. Just not sure. Thanks in advance, Radical_20
  6. I like it.. But add the ability to criss-cross from one side of the BB line to the other. Maybe you're a die-hard Red-Sox fan, and despise anything "New York". But you've heard that the New Mexico is great; wouldn't it be great if you could criss-cross from the Wyoming to the Nevada to the New Mexico???
  7. I would rather have a double-wide (or even triple-wide) BB line. By that I mean at each tier you could choose to either grind any one (or all) of the ships at the next tier. You could move up the tiers straight, or criss-cross, or how-ever you want. For Example: The St. Louis cruiser, you could grind for the S. Carolina or the alternative Tier 3 BB. From either of those you could grind the Wyoming or the alternative. And so on up the line. Some tiers may only have one BB at a tier, other tiers 2 or 3. It'd avoid trying to shoe-horn a ship into a tier where it doesn't belong simply for the sake of "needing something" at that tier. It'd avoid paper ships as well. In this way, you can pick and choose which ship(s) to grind/play, depending on your play style or desire. If you just gotta have any/all BBs available... grind/buy them all. Personally, I wish Wargaming would have done this with the USN cruiser line. From the Omaha you could go to the Pensacola or the Dallas. (Or get them both if you want). From the Dallas you could criss-cross to the New Orleans without ever touching the Pensacola, or you could go straight up to the Helena. From the New Orleans you could criss-cross to the Cleveland, or straight up to the Baltimore. From the Helena criss-cross to the Baltimore, or straight up to the Cleveland. And so forth up the line. You could go from Omaha to Dallas to New Orleans to Cleveland to Seattle to Des Moines if you want. Or any route you wanted.
  8. Another compilation video. This time, the North Carolina. Truth be told. The hard drive on my computer was nearly full from all the replay videos. So I got busy today and did some editing. I hope you enjoy it. Comments welcome.
  9. This is less about the North Carolina, and more about damage done, and the reporting of that Damage. I was going through old replays, and I found one of the NC. Getting a Dev-strike on a Cleveland. (I believe it was a tier 6 Cleveland at the time) I did 29,804 damage. But the ribbons that showed up were: 1 penetration, 2 overpens. followed by 2 citadels, followed by the destroy ribbon, and finally the Dev-strike award. Did I get 3 hits? Or did I actually get 5? If I only got 3 hits, I don't understand how I can get 2 citadels with 1 penetration and 2 overpens. If I got 5 hits, then shouldn't citadel hits count as regular hits as well? Can somebody explain that to me? Maybe I'm reading things wrong.. It just struck me as odd.. Thanks, Radical_20
  10. This thread has been dormant for some time.. My own fault for not following up. I've edited my first video, and uploaded to Youtube. I have been collecting cit-kills for quite a while, so I can make several more videos in the future. Comments welcome.
  11. North Carolina ---> Iowa Question

    First, I'm not complaining. Not at all. Just making an observation. Let's say I have 100 marbles. 10 marbles are yellow, and the other 90 marbles are blue. The yellow marbles represent a strategic scenario where bow in, is a good idea.... 10 percent. The blue marbles represent when bow in isn't a good idea.... 90 percent. Now, let's add 100 more blue marbles. The number of yellow marbles has stayed the same, but now, expressed as a percentage, what was 10 percent, has declined to 5 percent. I'm just picking numbers out of the air for sake of example.. So don't criticize please. This is what I'm trying to express about the NC (and Iowas too) and using bow in as a tactic. Bow in isn't as useful of an option any more because there are more and more scenarios where it isn't. Because, over the last couple years, more and more ships have been added where bow-in isn't a good option against them. Because the NC will find itself in more and more scenarios, the odds (percentage chance) of coming across one where bow-in is a good idea, has decreased. Again, because the number of scenarios has increased.
  12. North Carolina ---> Iowa Question

    Ok.. Let me try again. Let's say it's totally one-on-one. There are no more ships left on either side. This eliminates "Focus fire." It's strictly One-on-One. Even then, if the NC goes Bow-on to the opponent, if that opponent is an HE spammer, of which so many have been added of late, the NC's "bow on" approach is no longer a valid tactic. My point, and I'll try to say it clearly this time... is that the number of situations where bow-on is a valid strategy is becoming a smaller percentage of strategic situations. That's ALL I'm trying to say. Nothing more than that. I am NOT suggesting the situational awareness, positioning, and all the other things aren't important. ALL that I'm saying is that the bow-on strategy is becoming less and less of a valid choice. Can we at least agree on that?
  13. North Carolina ---> Iowa Question

    I was thinking about this some more today. Obviously it's situational. And being outnumbered is always a situation to stay out of. But beyond the "No duh" simplicity of that. Bow in is something, once done, you have to commit to. Once bow in.. You're pretty much stuck there, win or loose. Bow in is also time consuming. It can be a long battle of attrition; whittling down the opponent over time.You can't really get out of it, unless you just get lucky enough to find an island infront and slightly beside you, so you can power forward and duck behind the island. And we know the islands are never where you expect them to be. But back to my original point, with the added number of HE spammers in the game, I find the number of times I can afford to go bow in are fewer and farther between. Will additional HE ships render this tactic for NC obsolete?
  14. Bye Bye Colorado !

    First cup? Must have about a gallon capacity.
  15. North Carolina ---> Iowa Question

    I wonder if "bow in" is effective any more. With the abundance of HE spamming ships in the game, bow in is becoming synonymous with being on fire.