Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

22 Neutral

About FirebirdXIV

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. FirebirdXIV

    I just don't understand...

    yeah, turns out I play on a surface book 2 (like a surface pro but with a GTX1060 and 4 cores) which normally gets 70fps on medium settings. My internet connection was 100mpbs, which could be problematic, and I thought about them both. But based on the fact that others were having the same problem, (most notably my two division mates on discord) I decided that it probably was a server issue. I understand that it might be a glitch. Or a problem with my pc. But what are the chances that both of my division-mates, playing on much beefier systems than mine, should have the same problem. (I think that picture should also show an exclamation of displeasure from the enemy Erie). Honestly, I think this is just a server issue. But what do I know?? Also note that that is not a default gamecam and I am in free camera.
  2. This is a screenshot taken from a tier 2 battle. Typical battle on big race, half of the team is bots, the other half are players, 7 t1's, 4 t2's, and a t3. Looked great, with one small problem... Anyone have any idea how this happened?
  3. FirebirdXIV

    Ohio? what is this?

    That's just WG monetizing the hell out of the game. They're like EA except more discreet.
  4. FirebirdXIV

    Ohio? what is this?

    basically if they were comissioned before 1946, they in game, if not, they out? I like your thinking. However, it has a few loopholes, If you wan't to know them just ask. I'm too lazy to tell you them now.
  5. FirebirdXIV

    A proposal for the American BBs

    True, true. What about radar like the Missouri? It would be historically accurate, as the US had very good fire control radars, but it wouldn't be a gimmick as much as a tool.
  6. FirebirdXIV

    Opinions with paper ships in game?

    Yeah, but . People will always argue about game balance. Thats just how people are, and you cant really change that. If everybody got their wish then we'd have an arms race, just like in real life, about who could build the most OP ship. Many people would consider the ideal ship one that is fast, impregnable, maneuverable, and armed with weapons unmatched in quality or quantity, but is only powerful in the hands of them. In other words, an "I win" tool exclusive to them. I believe (maybe mistakenly) that most ships have comparable adversaries from most major powers. If we look at lion Vanguard, Iowa, and Richelieu, not in game, but as they were in real life, they weren't far apart as far as capability goes. So were Yamato and Montana, or Sov. Soyuz and North Carolina. If I were to do a comparison of two ships (i'll take the St. Louis and Mogami classes as built for my comparison) from a similar era, they would come out relatively similar to each other. As built, both had 15 6 in guns, lacked radar, but had advanced optics and fire control to counter for that. They were swift, powerful, and mounted DP armament (though lighter AA guns seem to be in short supply). They were similar ships built to rival each other on the high seas. History does a better job at balancing ships than we give it credit for. My point isn't that I don't like paper ships in the game, it just irks me when ships that have little or no basis in reality are slotted into positions, especially in larger navies, that a better documented paper ship, or god forbid, a real ship, could have fitted in just as well if not better. Yeah, go tell that to the Kremlin. Or the Conquerer. Or some other ship that I can't think of because I'm writing this at 5am. I would really wish WG would just stick to real ships because: 1. It virtually assures (*sighs in Yamato*) that there will be historical, reliable, accurate documents that can provide the devs with everything they need to make the ship fun and historical. 2. Real ships have real stats. They are facts. As long as WG stays true to those stats (some small modifications may be needed for balance), and those ships, there will be little power-creep and public uproar about massive changes to ships that completely change their very play-style. 3. I know that paper ships are now inseperable from the game, but please, can you put ships in the game that have concrete stats? Is that too much to ask?
  7. Yes, I know. You probably have heard of the other people who put up forum names like this, who rant and rail about all the paper ships in the game and how they never entered service I hope to take a more moderate view. In my opinion, a "fake" ship is a ship that was a) designed with little to no effective purpose b) was not truly considered for production and not deemed effective and/or feasible, or c) was never really designed in depth in the first place. Of course, your opinions may vary, and I respect that. That is why there is a poll section for you to vote on. The real "fake" ship problem in my mind are those implemented in the game that really were based mostly off of vague documents and blueprints or not based off any concept at all and just made off of a large amount of assumptions based off of what a ship of it's type and role would look like when compared with similar ships of other roles, time periods, and nations. Most paper ships are vague enough, having big holes or just not enough info in critical design specifications, requiring even more assumptions, leading to all sorts of wierd designs being implemented in the game that basically scream this: -> A lot of the higher tier ships don't even really have papers to begin with, so it's this2 I really think that WG should get reliable info if they are to put paper ships in the game at all, and unless it's for balance purposes to rival a true ship that didn't have true contesters in real life, they should stick to ships from pre 50s that actually existed. I kinda would like to recommend this guide as a template: 1: Is it competitive/fun? I know that this is mostly about historical accuracy, but if it's not fun, why play it? And if it destroys game balance, then it simply is another gimmick for players to complain about. 2: Did it see service during ww2 or in the following months? If it did, why not put it in the game? It was built, saw service, and probably there is reliable documentation somewhere to code into the game. If not, then: 3: Was it built during or right after ww2? If it was, and just didn't see service then a) it was no longer relevant to the era: WoWs can probably handle that. The t10 BBs if completely historical would be killed by t10 aircraft in minutes, so if you have a late war BB that was scrapped for combat ineffectiveness, thats not the ships fault as much as its the fleets. b) a combination of a and it the need for it's materials caused it to be converted to something else (e.g. USS Lexington). Thats also not the ships fault. If the Montana was canceled because the USN because they needed more Essexses, it's their loss when Yamato kills taffy 3. c) It just wasn't good or/it was impossible to manufacture it. If the Navy it was being built by deemed it bad at it's intended role, then it probably wasn't a good design and should not be implemented in the game. I know if you buffed it - just no. Minor changes maybe, but too much and it's virtually a new ship that didn't exist. d) It wasn't built until the 50s or later. If it's a 40s era ship built in the 50s, maybe. Missile ships won't work though, WG is very firm that it doesn't like guided missiles. 4: What about a paper ship? If you look at the wiki and can find most preferably all of the stats that can be applied into the game (excluding things like damage and hp), then probably. If not, then I wouldn't support it. We are just back a square 1, with too many assumptions and not enough facts. 5: If it was only partially completed, or only a design study, did it have a combat purpose, or was it just to suit a dictators big ego and desire to have the most powerful ship in the world. In my mind, any ship in-game should have been designed with a specific battlefield role in mind. Those are my ideas, what do you think about paper ships in the game. Which have enough justification to be in WoWs, and which should be removed? I look forward to seeing your comments, even if they are "f*ck you you're wrong" or "you missed something." (preferably more thoughtful than that) I hope that you found this informative, and it gave you food for thought, and I would love to see you using this to back up your own paper ship arguments.
  8. FirebirdXIV

    Battleships are a disappointment

    Idk, bugs seem rare, yet catastrophic when they occur. But I don't think that a front-turret salvo from a Furutaka could cause 18500 damage without causing citadels.
  9. FirebirdXIV

    South Carolnia

    I liked SC, though she was a pain to grind. Can't say I was as good with her as some of the other people here, but I can say pretty confidently that she is a slow bunker with reasonably good armor and super-firing guns that have good pen and damage output (compared to other bbs). You won't want to get caught broadside though, and the ship is VERY slow with the stock engine, meaning that you will want very much to upgrade it, and in the meantime get good at strategizing your way out of torpedo minefields and into good firing positions. You are either the spearhead or the rear guard, and so expect to take hits either way. You have a heal, after all. P.S. are you fully upgraded yet? A top SC is pretty fun. You'll find it sorta like Wyoming, except Wyoming has more, derpier, guns.
  10. FirebirdXIV

    Battleships are a disappointment

    Unfortunately, such is true. However, I don't believe that furutakas should be citadeling New Mexico's at 10km while the NM's terrible dispersion and RoF means it struggles to do damage at anything beyond medium ranges. If it were up to me, battleships would have better accuracy, and slower fire rate. It would help increase historical accuracy but continue to keep the game balanced. However, I doubt battleships would be any more popular as they already have slow gameplay.
  11. FirebirdXIV

    Ohio? what is this?

    If you want historical naval accuracy, go to [edited], thats what they specialize in. Meanwhile, the rest of us competent folk can mostly agree that if it was approved for construction, like the h39 or h41, and if it was already being constructed at the time of being canceled, like the Montana, it was definitely not "fake" "fake" ships are ships that were built to no true requirement, have no basis in reality, and we're never considered effective or worth building. And as to there being 50s ships in the game, it doesn't matter as long as they are balanced and use comparable weaponry to their 40s counterparts. This game is not 100% historically accurate, it can't be while still being fun. You're [edited] about wanting only "historically accurate" ships would ruin the amount of ships WG could put in the game. The only real true tech trees in the game with your conception of what playable ships should be would be the US, UK, and Japan. Everybody else drew up plans for a large navy, some started building them, but none ever completed work. Sometimes fun and playable > historically accurate. So shut up, and go back to eating potato chips in your moms basement and using your $90 gaming rig and 90IQ brain for something else other than putting [edited] on this forum. Even going into the game and tking people is more useful than that. Bans exist for a reason. Sorry to everyone else if this sounds harsh, this guy needs to shut up.
  12. I see two possible ways that this ship will be played. The first is the back of the map spamming approach. Basically a conquerer, but with AP. The second is the complete forward rush, charging in and allowing the big guns and powerful secondaries to damage as many opponents as possible before eventually succumbing to overwhelming enemy fire. There may be a third way that involves going forward at modest speed with supporting ships, and using speed and concealment to kite enemy ships into secondary range and draw them towards your supporting cruisers, taking care to conceal yourself from all ships except the ones you're kiting. Of course, that would require some degree of competency and teamwork, so we might as well forget that one until good players are common enough that during your entire wows career, you'll see one.
  13. FirebirdXIV

    Ohio? what is this?

    If you put it that way, about half the ships in world of warships are fake And no ship in wows is completely "fake" the dev would not make a ship without some blueprints or other legitimate notion that such implemented designs actually were drawn up and considered/planned
  14. FirebirdXIV

    What are the problems with the current CV meta?

    As a cv player, I am finding that post CV rework, I am quickly finding that I am really just a slave to RNG. Sometimes I can get right through the gauntlet of two AA cruisers to attack a BB, and other times I simply get decimated by a destroyer. I also find that bombs are an american CV's most powerful weapon, but not its most reliable. RNG reliably ruins my perfect attack runs and that is one of the reasons that I believe that WG needs to reset the AA and bomb dispersion to normal levels, to avoid the infuriating pattern of OP, underpowered cycle. WG has not decreased the skill gap, its eliminated the effectiveness of skill at all.
  15. FirebirdXIV

    What are the problems with the current CV meta?

    After a game in an American CV where 18 torp hits landed me just short of 30k damage, I kinda think this is a good time to acknowledge that American CV torps are useless and don't do any damage and neither does the rare flood they inflict. American attack planes also don't have the maneuverability of their Japanese counterparts and the increased HP does not compensate for not being able to avoid flak walls.