Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

36 Neutral

1 Follower

About Red_Hammer_Fleet

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday 03/11/1990
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Fort Hood

Recent Profile Visitors

1,432 profile views
  1. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    Submarines - Make or Break for WoWS future

    An introduction of submarines into the game adds a lot of questions. How will battleships, cruisers, and aircraft carriers attack/sink a submarine? If the above are not in a position to attack, what are their options to avoid/evade a submarine? How will destroyers sink a submarine, being that it was/is a primary role of theirs to hunt submarines, especially in the face of radar (in the upper tiers)? How will submarine play be made interesting enough for players to actually enjoy them? What will be done to make each submarine line unique among nations? What changes will be made on each map to accommodate submarine play? Is there a plan for submarines to be included in Operations? Here's my theory for each point: Battleships will generally have to wait for a submarine to be spotted, cruisers should be able to use Hydro to spot them and engage with guns (also while surfaced or at PD), and carriers should be able to use the various aircraft types available to them. Carriers will have an important role added to them, of locating and tracking submarines to protect battleships and cruisers. Battleships should be able to outrun any submarine in the game, no question about it. Cruisers are much faster than battleships, so running away will also be an option. I don't know how fast aircraft carriers are, but I know that some of them are fast enough to outrun a destroyer and so should have no issues leaving a much-slower submarine in their wake. Any DD player can tell you that landing a torpedo hit on a fleeing ship is difficult at best. Destroyers should not rely on some kind of automated system to sink submarines. Instead we should gain a 4 key for active control of depth charges, whether racks or launchers or both. Give us a range fan like on a torpedo launcher and the ability to "see" the submarine we are attacking. The real trick with this, as others have pointed out, is the early game when the teams are jockeying for control of caps. I am not going to chase a circle into a cap while taking fire from light cruisers. I may want that submarine dead, but me being sunk is not worth the trade. This goes doubly so for T5+ games that see radar, and even more so in T8+ games that are saturated with radar-equipped ships. Submarine play will be very difficult to make interesting and fun. They need to be slow, butt-dragging slow, to balance their immense stealth advantage over opposing ships. That slow speed means they need to start well out in front of their team, even further ahead than destroyers do now. For submarine players, at least initially, there will be a corps of destroyer players that log on just to hunt newbie submarines. Every destroyer above T3 has depth charge launchers already modeled onto them. Take that with the prevalence of hydro at T4 and above, submarines will have a hell of a time starting out. The ASW environment for submarines will likely not let up; with many classes having hydro, depth charges, or both. German and British destroyers will be outstanding sub-hunters because of this. There was some talk about this already with variations in top range, speed, submerged time, and other factors mentioned in the reveal livestream. Assuming that the Germans have a fast torpedo reload and the Americans are generalists, that should set up the Japanese line for having the longest-range torpedoes, the British having single-launch tubes, and the Russians being the fastest. I could be wrong, but that has been a theme with those nations so far. My immediate first thought was the central channel on Two Brothers, if it will be made deep enough to allow a submarine to use as an attack vector. There are a few other maps with obviously shallow waters. This includes, but is not limited to: is the eastern island cluster on Hotspot, the B cap atoll on Trap, the east and west archipelagos on Mountain Range, and the west cap on Sleeping Giant. That can be one balancing factor, requiring them to surface in order to reach certain areas. I can only see submarines playing any kind of role in two Operations: Defense of Naval Station Newport and Killer Whale. Newport would have a sub actively hunting the incoming waves while Killer Whale would be defensively attacking each wave as it comes in. Of course, WG will do what they are going to do and then react to player feedback for balance. Hopefully it is not a dumpster fire like 0.8.0 was.
  2. I won't call myself a fan of the carrier. My signature should tell you that if anything I should hate carriers more than the average player. I've been cross-dropped, detonated, devstriked, perma-spotted, and focused down by carriers from every tier. I'd bet that every carrier in the game has sunk me at least once (probably more). But I can't call for carriers to be removed. They need a lot of adjusting, and some major changes are coming now. Hell, the shift from RTS to TPS control of squadrons makes a gigantic difference. No more getting swarmed by a Hakuryuu, no more getting perma-spotted by one squadron of fighters while the rest raise hell elsewhere. The CV players gets one attack system at a time, like the rest of us. I've also watched a lot of replay time, and the times I've recorded seem to put their second strike around 12 seconds after the first (strike, planes circle back, line up for the next strike, and strike) plus the time needed to move into position and when changing between squadrons. And that footage was all against bots that were not really evading, much less against experienced players who know how to evade attack. The biggest problem with CV play has already been said: the skill difference. The dual nature of the CV player community between potatoes and deities hasn't helped. The change over to third-person from overhead will narrow down that gap. Also yes, getting detonated is part of the game. I fly Juliet Charlie flags whenever I can. I'm sorry if you dislike that, but it is a part of the game that effects everyone. If you are triggered by a detonation while driving a battleship, please do a few dozen games in a DD and let me know how that goes. This is where the BBabies really annoy me. Between the "DDs are OP" and "CVs are cancer" posts, you mostly make yourselves look self-absorbed and incompetent. Too focused on what you want to see the game as a whole. Some of the BB players I've encountered simply outplayed me, many of them have killed me or forced me to sulk away while my torpedoes reloaded. Others have been nothing more than a piñata for me to rack up XP , damage, and desvtrike medals with. tl:dr: git gud.
  3. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    CV rework and its possible impact on DDs?

    Would heavily depend on positioning, map mission, and team roster. It'll probably be much worse in the higher tiers, where ships have more alpha-strike ability and more experienced players handling the guns. Also depends on the skill of the individual DD player. I don't know if I'm good enough to juggle a sustained multiple-effort torpedo attack while being focused by the enemy ships in range, but I sorta want to see if I can. If I see that friendly ships aren't covering me while I angle toward a cap, I don't at all mind turning out and letting the other team take it. No point getting sunk for a cap that the other team will take anyway. That, and some maps will be easier to play than before. One example would be Two Brothers. Previously, a CV could spread their aircraft over the east and west capture points to spot enemy DDs easily. Now a CV can only pick one cap circle to scout for the team, forcing the ships on the other cap circle to scout on their own. The CV rework is going to be a double-edged sword in all kinds of ways.
  4. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    CV rework and its possible impact on DDs?

    I went back and looked at the CV Rework video. The squadron was from a Midway, which currently has 6 squadrons of 6 aircraft each. Maybe WG decided to do 1/1/1 with 12 aircraft each instead of 2/2/2 with 6 aircraft each. A silver lining to controlling one squadron at a time would leave the other cap circles free of harassment for opposing/friendly DDs. That one DD will have a hell of a time, but any others will have less to worry about. Broke out a stopwatch and started recording the interval between weapon releases. From the first to second torpedo strikes, the interval was 34.5 seconds. Now, I'm sure the player controlling the squadron could have cut that time down by a bit, but even 15 seconds between attacks leaves a lot more room for a DD to escape & evade. On the second set of two strikes, I counted an interval of 39.4 seconds but the player circled around pretty widely before going for the second run. That could have easily been half as long. Looking at the dive bomber videos, the first consecutive set of strikes took 21 seconds. Attacking stationary ships with little to no flak. There's a set of attacks on a Yamato, doesn't look like they were really going for speedy attacks (more trying to show off the new gameplay). 25 seconds from the first to second attacks, then another 32 seconds from the second to third attacks. Against a battleship without its AA turned on and sailing in a straight line. I really don't think the video is all that illustrative other than (for DD captains) removing the chance to be cross-dropped and expanding the amount of time we will get to dodge a follow-on attack. Most of the DDs I enjoy don't have access to DFAA, so it'll be all about WASD hax and praying that a friendly ship nearby has better AA than me. Even if it takes 30 seconds for a squadron to come about and move in for another strike (which it shouldn't), DFAA should still be in effect for most of the ships that have it (40s is the most common duration, mostly depends on gun range). I'll wager that a good cruiser captain will turn to avoid the first strike, pop DFAA for the second strike, and hope that he shreds enough aircraft that a third or fourth strike isn't feasible. I'll bet good money that the USN and IJN CVs will have different-size squadrons and/or different compositions for a strike flight. Just guessing, but it would make sense for the USN squadrons to fly 12 birds and attack three at a time for four strikes, while the IJN squadrons fly 8-12 birds and attack with 4 for two to three strikes (or attack with two birds, for 4-6 strikes). Yeah, DD AA isn't exactly great. I noticed that the USN BBs don't have DFAA, which feels strange to me. They do have 'unlimited' planes, but WG did say that wasting aircraft will give them a debuff for getting the replacement squadron into the air. Agreed.
  5. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    Submarines, and Anti-Submarine Warfare

    Between depth charges, Squid, Hedgehog, Limbo, and a few other (more exotic) systems, quite a few ships will have more than a little bit of ASW weaponry. I did find a few mentions of RN CLs carrying depth charges, but have yet to find any source documents of a cruiser successfully sinking a submarine with depth charges or with a bomb-throwing system. I've also only searched English-language data, so I am certainly missing out on quite a lot of other reports. I wonder which nations will the best at killing subs. The USN and RN were certainly quite good at it, the IJN and KM had loads of experience with it as well. Not sure about the Russians (though submarines have long been a specialty of theirs), not sure about the French or Italians.
  6. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    Submarines, and Anti-Submarine Warfare

    I commented on a submarines thread about that. Subs will probably need to have their starting marks set even further forward than destroyers in order to compensate. Start off on the surface, dive once they get close.
  7. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    Subs might underperform

    Another balancing question lies in the prevalence of hydro. Would have to check, but I think every cruiser at T4 and higher has access to hydro (plus the German and British DDs above T6, German BBs above T8). There is a LOT of hydro already in the game. Given the announcement about hydro being unified across most ships, with an increased ship detection range, sub drivers will enter the game to an extremely hostile antisubmarine warfare environment. I may have miscounted, but my count hit fifty-seven ships with access to Hydro. Minimum duration of 90 seconds, minimum detection range of 3.12km. If WG doesn't increase the 'air time' for subs above 80s, then subs are going to be royally screwed when caught either by a DD/CC team or a solo KM/RN DD. 3km is point-blank range for everyone, and maneuvering to avoid an enemy at low speed (<15kts) is already difficult enough. Doing so while trying to dodge depth charges (and/or hedgehog/squid bombs) will be nerve-wracking. I'll predict a fairly high skill floor and an even higher skill ceiling for submarine players. At least as difficult as what DD players have now, if not even harder.
  8. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    Submarines, and Anti-Submarine Warfare

    Yeah, probably the 2km auto-spotting distance. A lot of the upper-tier DDs have launchers/projectors. The USN ships in particular have "K-Guns", you can see them on the Kidd and Fletcher along the port and starboard railings. They had a maximum range of about 150m, so you might not have to be directly over a sub in order to attack it. You just have to be "pretty close". Given their slow speed while submerged (probably never more than 15kts), I don't see any DD or other ASW-equipped ship having an issue making an attack or just running away. Even something as slow as a New York can outrun almost any submarine class I can find if it is submerged. Certainly any class within that MM spread. Far as different ways to attack: you have guns (when surfaced), torps (when at periscope depth), depth charges (when submerged), and I'm going to assume that CVs will have some way of attacking a sub (perhaps dive bombers?). Since cruisers have so much access to hydro and DDs/CVs have the anti-sub weaponry, a poor sub captain will probably get merc'ed pretty easily given about 30 seconds of teamwork. Well, we have the Halloween event to find out for ourselves. I'm mildly interested in subs, but have invested so much into DDs that I might not go into them all that seriously. I agree that their slow submerged speeds will seriously dampen a lot of enthusiasm, even the fastest classes I've found (nothing nuclear-powered) could maybe make 20 knots while submerged, and those classes would be the facing 30-knot+ fast battleships and 40-knot+ DDs in the upper tiers.
  9. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    Submarines, and Anti-Submarine Warfare

    It's official, submarines are to be tested in the upcoming Halloween event. Most of the video that we've seen was focused on how submarines are to be played. The boats we saw had torpedo tubes forward and aft, variable depth control, an oxygen meter that requires them to surface, and had fairly limited HP pools. What interested me in the video was the short clip that showed depth charges falling around a submarine, a sort of hint toward how anti-submarine warfare (ASW) will work. It seems readily apparent that a submarine caught on the surface will be destroyed in short order, given their near-total lack of armor and small HP pools. What interested me more was the implications for ASW. In the video here we see a submarine evading depth charges, and taking damage from one at an unknown range. I will wager that whenever WG does get around to ASW that a submarine will take more damage the closer they are to a depth charge. Now, what does this mean for us DD captains? I've looked over every destroyer that I can view, and 59 of 68 have depth charge racks already modeled (87%). A few have depth charge launchers on the port and starboard sides in addition to their stern racks. Even looking at the DDs I don't yet own, racks and launchers of various kinds are easily noticeable on almost all of them. Assuming that subs will be added at T4, only Isokaze, Farragut, and Aigle do not have an immediately obvious ASW armament. Among those, only Isokaze doesn't have any depth charges listed as part of its armament in any historical data that I can find. Farragut and Aigle both declare depth charges as part of their original designed armament, including stern racks and port/starboard launchers. It does appear that the Kami Sisters (Kami, Kami R, and Fujin) and Gremyaschy also have depth charge racks on their respective sterns. This brings the total up to 72 total DDs in-game, with 65 of them having some kind of ASW suite (90%). The remaining 7 DDs are either T2 (Tachibana, Umikaze, Sampson, Smith, V-25, and Longjiang) or the Isokaze at T4. If we are to see submarines enter the game, T4 is the absolute lowest tier that they can begin from and still have a consistent base of opposing ships that can routinely sink them within the MM spread. That leaves me with a safe assumption that WoWs will retain the fact that every ship in the game can (theoretically) damage/sink every other ship in the game, with one exception (Isokaze, and that can be fixed thanks to some space on the stern currently occupied by minesweepers). As for mechanics and tactics, it still remains to be seen what we DD captains will get in terms of how to launch depth chargers. My wager is that we will see the 4 key used for launching depth charges, and some kind of range fan and aiming indicator off of the stern and/or sides. The video showed the submarine maneuvering to dodge the depth charges as they fell, which also tells me that the game will include a seafloor beyond what we have no if/when subs are added. Tactically, almost every cruiser in the game at T4 and above has access to Hydroacoustic Search. Add in the German and British DDs at T6 as well as the German BBs at T8, submarine commanders will show up into an extremely hostile ASW environment from Day One. That's if WG doesn't decide to give Hydro to any other DD lines (USN, IJN, VMF, and PA), and we still haven't seen the French destroyer line yet. Haida has Hydro at T7, as does the Loyang at T8. Looking more deeply at hydro, the picture gets worse. At absolute minimum, one charge of hydro will last no less than 90 seconds and detect a ship out to 3.12km. Considering that a cap circle is 8km in diameter, any opposing ship that fires up its Hydro in a cap circle will leave a very small area for a submarine to avoid being seen. I'll predict a surge in German ships being played, since they have the overall best Hydro in the game (3.96km @ 92 seconds minimum, 5.88km @ 122 seconds maximum). The balancing factor to all this is that there are only so many destroyers that can hunt down a submarine on their own. I count sixteen destroyers (7 each KM and RN, plus the Haida and Loyang), all above T6. That puts everyone else in a position that requires some teamwork between a hydro-equipped cruiser or and a depth charge-carrying destroyer, with a few rare exceptions. I am missing another major factor: cruisers equipped with depth charges. I know that there were at least a few cruiser classes equipped with antisubmarine weapons, whether hedgehog launchers or depth charges, but haven't yet had time to really research it. Anyway, that's my little thought.
  10. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    CV Rework Condensed Version

    Indeed. I won't blame them for setting it up the way they did. It seems like the new system will lower both the skill floor and skill ceiling, while still retaining some requirement of skill to inflict damage. It does look like a more balanced system, here's hoping it works out.
  11. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    CV Rework Condensed Version

    Even with the AA turned down (heard rumor that the close-range AA batteries were shut down on the bots), the player was still losing aircraft if they lingered too long. I don't play CVs, but the changes look like a step in a good direction.
  12. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    Proposed Consumable: Sabotage

    When I said "I'm not entirely certain what all these numbers mean as a whole", I meant in the sense of an analytical conclusion. The data was scattered enough in its results that I couldn't find anything close to a simple answer. As for some kind of conclusive answer ... I would need to do several hours of research before even daring to put pen to paper. Work out which ships were released when and with what consumable options, just to get a baseline of semi-usable information. I don't know if snapshot numbers are out there for relative ship populations during a given month and the number of battles played for each ship. One major problem that I have with the graphs is that they don't mention change in server population. It would make sense to me that the average number of players on a server would increase as the player base grows. The averages are nice, but without a measurement against the server populations and rates of ship play, nothing truly concrete can be said. If I could get the snapshots for each ship that was in the game in December of 2015 and the number of games played for each of those ships, the same for September 2017, release dates for every ship in the intermediate, and the daily average server population for each month (12/15 and 09/17), then I could work something out that has at least a thin veneer of analytical value. But alas, I cannot make bricks without clay. For that last line, I suppose so. Almost every tier in the second graph shows battleships receiving less torpedo damage by percentage than destroyers. A few of the margins are rather thin, but they are present. You missed T7, where BBs receive 0.6% more damage from torpedoes. Six-tenths of one percent ... not exactly something to get out of bed for. To be fair, a few other tiers are about half a percentage point the other way - especially in the upper tiers. What's odd is that top-tier cruisers aren't receiving a similar proportion of torpedo damage as battleships or destroyers. BBs and DDs see about 12.8% of their received damage from DD-launched torpedoes while cruisers of the same tier spread receive an average of 8.8% of their damage from DD-launched torpedoes. That's about a third less, when in the first snapshot the averages were more varied across ship types (+/-2.4%; 16.5% BB, 11.7% CC, 14.7% DD). Thank you, @Kochira. Were it not for the last line of your comment, the tangent that made up my last paragraph there may not have been inspired. You showed me a different way to view the data, for which I am thankful. I would buy you a beer if I could.
  13. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    Proposed Consumable: Sabotage

    I'm rather late to the party here, but I did notice that almost nobody has addressed the data that @LittleWhiteMouse presented in an analytical way. As LWM presented, the amounts have significantly changed. For CVs, T4 to T10, the percentage dropped an average of 4.2% across the board. Going from an average of 12.6% of damage received down to 8.4% of damage received. That's across the entire CV population and for all tiers. The largest difference was surprisingly enough at T4, with an 8.6% drop in DD torpedo damage received. The upper-tier CVs saw ~1% reduction in destroyer torpedo damage received over that time. Battleships saw a similar drop (4.3% average) in received torpedo damage, again with the largest reduction in DD torpedo damage happening in the lower tiers. At T3, battleships saw their received torpedo damage reduced by almost half: from 20.8% to 10.9%. The higher tiers received a similar benefit, with an average reduction of 4.1%. Cruisers, which have received primary access to radar, also saw reductions in received torpedo damage across the board. As a group they received 4.2% less torpedo damage between the two snapshots. T3 and T4 share the top spot for largest change, with each tier seeing a 6.4% reduction. The top tiers saw a 2.9% reduction, which is odd since the top-tier cruisers have the greatest volume of access to radar. T10 did see an appreciable change, with a 6.4% reduction in torpedo damage received. That is one-sixteenth of all damage received by all cruisers in the game. As a class, Destroyers saw the smallest reduction in received torpedo damage at 2.1%. T5 saw the greatest reduction (4.1%), while the top tiers got a 1.5% reduction. This isn't terribly surprising, as destroyers are the fastest and most agile ship type in the game, and have the easiest time dodging a fish. LWM states that these two graphs date from end of 2015 (I'm guessing December) and September of 2017 respectively. Not quite two years between them, and we've seen a drop for every ship type vis-á-vis torpedo damage received. Even at its height, approximately one-fifth of battleship damage in two tiers (T3 & T10) came from torpedoes. One-fifth, and it was christened "Torpedo Soup"? The worst that cruisers had it at the time was 15%, at T3. It is all borne out in the numbers listed, go look for yourself and you'll see it. For comparison: CVs saw a 12.1% increase in AP damage and a 0.2% increase in HE damage. That's opposite a 4.2% decrease in torpedo damage. Battleships saw a 1.5% increase in AP damage and a 2.4% increase in HE damage. Opposite a 4.1% decrease in torpedo damage. Cruisers: 12.7% increase in AP damage, and a 4.4% decrease in HE damage. Opposite a 4.2% decrease in torpedo damage. Destroyers: 10.2% increase in AP, and an 8.4% decrease in HE damage. Opposite a 2.1% decrease in torpedo damage. That is across all tiers, mind you. The top tiers saw some odd changes over this time period: Top-Tier CVs received a 20.1% increase in AP damage and a 6.4% increase in HE damage. Opposite a 1.1% decrease in torpedo damage. Top-Tier Battleships received a 1.5% increase in AP damage and a 2.4% increase in HE damage. Opposite a 4.1% decrease in torpedo damage. Top-Tier Cruisers received a 9% increase in AP damage and a 4.7% decrease in HE damage. Opposite a 2.9% decrease in torpedo damage. Top-Tier Destroyers received an 11% increase in AP damage and a 9.5% decrease in HE damage. Opposite a 1.5% decrease in torpedo damage. I'm not entirely certain what all these numbers mean as a whole. I did leave out a few categories for the sake of keeping this simple. The pattern that I am observing is an across-the-board decrease in torpedo damage, which has hurt a group of players that already didn't have the easiest time as gameplay went. Every top-tier group (T8-T10) across the game has seen less torpedo damage, from what wasn't exactly the most competitive set of numbers. While damage has been compensated for in other areas -- particularly AP damage, which increased for literally everyone -- the crux of a destroyer lies in her torpedo tubes. I don't know if anyone else remembers, but the 'top ships of the month' thing has yet to list a destroyer in the top-5 for most-played in a month. As I recall, there isn't a single destroyer in the top ten ships for most-played when measured in terms of games played. Destroyers are a critical part of the game, and it seems like they aren't really popular. The longer this goes on without any tangible changes, destroyer players will not want to keep playing. This is alienating players, as these forums have shown. As for why they aren't popular, I think I have a pretty good idea for why. Destroyer play is "short, brutish, and nasty" as a matter of course, even without radar in the game. Add in radar and that life often gets much shorter. While it is very true that evading radar is a required skill for any DD captain, radar does have some problems that need to be addressed. The "spot through islands" bug is my chief complaint, though there are a few other problems with it as well. As for the conversation about "hard counters", some of you seem to have forgotten another hard counter to smoke: Hydro. Almost all the high-tier cruisers and a lot of mid-to-high-tier destroyers have access to Hydro. Anyone who plays German destroyers knows this quite well: Bring a friend or two in a cruiser (CLs are great for this), watch for a cap to start turning, run in, fire up the hydro, and feed an unsuspecting DD to the cruiser(s) following you. I've done it before, it is a legitimate tactical method. The element that has been missing from that conversation so far lies in what destroyers are supposed to do: cap and scout, sink ships when practical. Anyone in a cruiser with radar can see that a cap is being taken, run over, use the consumable, and that destroyer has to run until the radar runs out. Best case, he takes no damage and has to turn around to try again for the cap (done that as well). Worst case, he loses a large chunk of his health and has to walk on eggshells for the rest of the game. How many times have you spotted a DD in a cap circle, he goes to flee, drops his smoke to cover his retreat, and he gets lit up by radar? What happened next? Did the ship make it out? I will bet that the destroyer didn't make it much farther, or was seriously damaged from the ordeal. If you don't play destroyers, I would like it if you tried them out. Get to T7 and try capping when there are three to five radar cruisers on the opposing team (double points if you are bottom-tier). You will spend a good chunk of the game running from that radar and trying to cap or scout. Good luck sinking anything with your torpedoes, as most battleship players appear to also know which cruisers have radar and will stay firmly behind the safety of radar cover. I'm willing to bet that the use of radar as a shield for battleships has also contributed to the passive meta. Throw in the hit percentage numbers for destroyer torpedoes (hundreds fired in a single match, maybe a dozen will hit), and you'll see that something is amiss. I will not advocate for radar to be done away with. It is in the game, we have to live with it. It does need some adjustment, and I would like it if WG did not add radar onto any more ships until that adjustment is completed. Just like the RN CV line, I don't think anyone is expecting it to come out before the other two lines have been fixed. Let's take a tactical pause, fix what needs fixing, and then move on.
  14. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    Premium Ship Review #108: T-61

    Yep. I'm getting this.
  15. Red_Hammer_Fleet

    Captain vs. Crew

    I love the sarcasm in this. The first few replies gave me a pretty solid impression of "your idea is just not gonna happen", but your reply is one of the best I've ever seen on here. +1 Internets to you.