Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

16 Neutral

About SuperComm4

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. SuperComm4

    What is this WG

    We continue to see threads around this topic because this remains a real problem, in several ways. This whole issue is anachronistic for a game that draws it’s inspiration from history. I get that it is a game, but T3 ships (1910-1916 launched in most cases) were essentially Jutland era ships, and fighting CVs was simply not something they ever encountered (let alone 3 enemy CVs!) in a combat situation. Hence the total lack of AA in their designs. At launch (in the early 1920s), the CVs presented at T4 were not really used as ship killing devices, and as that transition took place the surface ships also added AA as a result. These CVs need to make their entry in T5 single CV matches with the occasional T4 uptiered. The 3 CV per match issue should only be allowable at T8/T10 when those kinds of CV fleets were a reality. The related issue is that the CV ultimately killed the surface ship, so if WG feels it part of the experience to emulate that, T3 matches are simply not the place to do it as that happened around T9 level technology. Now that WG has the whole line reset thing, perhaps they would consider a MM refit where one gets a choice to uptier in exchange for 200% XP or more. So I can run my T3 in a T5 match and get 300%, T6 for 400% etc. I would expect a decent number of people would try it, and while it may be an exercise in futility, it would be a more rewarding one than a 3 CV match as a T3 ship is currently.
  2. SuperComm4

    Submarines are Coming

    The backlash is overwhelming and clear, the many things I would add to that side of the debate have already been stated with much passion and vigor. But this announcement is also clear: subs are coming. When they arrive will be the time to decide how much I will continue to play. This game is already not realistic in its gameplay: “Bow-tanking” fast battleships that slowly back away, or cruisers that lay anchor behind an island say enough about the “realism in naval combat” this game offers...so at the end of the day it survives because it is fun and intriguing, and for me it is a way to see great 3D models of these ships in action, albeit not realistic action. So in this news I look for things that could potentially be exciting about the mode, or at least intrigue me: 1.) The homing torpedo thing: I would derive satisfaction from using this on “snipers” sitting isolated behind islands. Almost as much as I enjoy one-shotting them in a BB. 2.) The underwater terrain idea: I remember playing 688i Attack Sub decades ago that had this concept. If done right it could really be intriguing. 3.) The potential for changing game tactics: I find things in randoms have gotten pretty “rinse-repeat” stale. And those practitioners of the worst extremes of these stale tactics are also the most vitriolistic when things don’t fit into their cookie cutter script. I have caught myself doing this. Random Battles as a whole needs something to make it better. Not saying that this is it, but it is nowhere near as fun as it used to be. If subs can counter potato’s, we may have a good thing. 4.) New game mode possibilities: I would love if they gave us Random Battles that had different objectives, like “convoys/commerce raiding”, “escape/ambush”, or “channel dash”. After CVs and Subs, they can’t have any new class of ships to ruin my surface war experience...... 5.) When all the seasoned naval surface warfare vets who want actual realism give up on WoWS, the developers will realize the time is right to use these same brilliant 3D models mated to historically realistic ship armor schemes and ballistics to make a ridiculously expensive game that has realistic naval surface combat only and tons of real scenarios. For such a thing I wait in line to buy. 80% Ocean engagements, full broadsides, fleet tactics, damage control decisions, listing....
  3. SuperComm4

    WINNERS - Battle of Heligoland Bight

    I love these historical tie ins and events! It also lets me pause and remember to the date what was happening on the high seas years ago. But wouldn't this event be more fitted to run lower tiers (III & IV) more applicable to the WWI era?
  4. SuperComm4

    HE vs BB's and IFHE - another long time problem.

    I never have played World of Tanks, and always wondered why in the world “bow-tanking” was a thing in this game, when naval surface actions never saw such a tactic that I’m aware of. The scene of WWII fast battleships slowly backing up stunned me the first time I saw it. This explanation really makes a lot of sense. While I’m not sure that’s exactly what happened with the mechanics creation, this has to be the best explanation of the mechanics that I’ve seen, and fits what I see - I appreciate this comment! Sadly, they couldn’t change the mechanics significantly at this point. It would be too drastic of a gameplay change.
  5. SuperComm4

    Coal Ships Dilemma

    I just went thru this dilemma myself. I have up to T9 IJN and US cruisers. I went Salem, and have been happy. The heal capability is nice. And I sank a Yoshino in a duel, so that helped with buyers remorse. RoF was a key deciding factor. Under 5 sec reload after modules.
  6. SuperComm4

    Over-pen and the Izumo

    Does the game mechanic for certain allow the water to trigger the AP shell fuse?
  7. This is amusing because I had a similar theory as well, except in mine I thought that when I upgraded modules is when I got uptiered or otherwise put into a tougher mm bracket. As a result, I would run stock ships until they got a losing WR, then I would upgrade them. I don’t think it really made a difference, although my first matches in a new stock boat do seem to do well. Example: a few weeks ago I got 3 new boats researched. Each of them their first matches set records, and tied my most ships sunk record. Since then I seem to lose more than win, although with Richelieu I lose followed by lose some more. I even lose Coops in that thing. Isokaze is similar.
  8. SuperComm4

    I think CVs are ruining the game

    Part of the issue is a lot of us are so focused on being Rambo. We have a strategy and the CV presence ruins it, or focuses on us and we get salty. More team communication and regrouping would help everyone, and the games where I see people doing that tend to minimize the CV “sky cancer” feelings. Twice today a DD made it to the other side of the map and sank enemy BBs and CVs undetected the entire time. I was the DD, and we lost both matches, and I was absolutely why we lost both, despite scoring high. I get that super-unicum players can carry a team, and I can occasionally do so, but as a middling player I do much better when coordinating. CVs just represent a different challenge, but I am over my frustrations. Playing them helped me realize they are not the gods I made them out to be.
  9. SuperComm4

    I think CVs are ruining the game

    Here are some thoughts, in random order and lacking coherence: I actually like playing CV now more than before, it’s an interesting change. But I can’t stand T4 CVs because they historically were not the factor they are at T4.T4 is essentially Jutland/ early WW1. CVs at T5 maybe; I can see some use late WW1 era but it’s a stretch. Then there’s the historical issue: by T8 historically we are looking at CVs ruling the oceans, so the game really has to neuter them. Hard to make sense of CVs in this game working in a manner that works for both surface ship players and CV players to enjoy. Historically CVs ended surface engagements. Maybe WG will make a lot of night maps where CVs can’t play, or spawn subs by them to force DDs to hunt subs...it’s a new can of worms no matter what. I think a big part of the appeal of this game is to use surface ships of the WW2 era in a way that they were designed for but never actually used (surface engagements). CVs almost need their own game mode where they should not be as nerfed, and team tactics are paramount...but then comes the matter of potatoes (matchmaking) and team strategy in random games. I do recommend playing CV for a significant amount of time to learn them; I’ve been doing so in Coop, and I am really coming around to them. Plus, I’ve found a different strategy is critical in CV games. When I get caught alone there is nothing I can do, but that’s the case even in surface engagements (focus fire), so lack of patience is mainly what results in me hating the game, when the problem is actually me.
  10. SuperComm4

    Soemthing's up

    This actually makes a lot of sense, and is the most rational explanation I’ve seen. I still maintain that the unbroken streaks of losses or wins like pictured earlier are not very “random”, but events pulling in bad play due to players in ships they don’t normally play explains a lot of what I’ve seen this weekend. Especially with some of the event’s requirements. They should always allow coop for completion. One was Random only and I’m sure nobody’s win rate benefited (aside from the select few).
  11. SuperComm4

    The game is frustrating and unfun

    I am glad we have frequent MM posts because: 1 - it is a problem, and 2 - I learn from those that put knowledge in their replies. Its called Random matches, yet I get binge losing streaks of 10 + straight, when I am in the top 3 every time, yet get on winning streaks and am in the bottom 3 in every match. It just doesn’t feel very random losing 20 in a row. Just tonight I had multiple matches where our DDs chase our BBs to J10 in an apparent attempt to leave the battle zone. I get that they supposedly cannot tell WR or player skill; perhaps an expansion on the 1-15 ranking levels could be helpful? I often see it pointed out that it is probably me (or the OP) that is the catalyst. But even a total potato should win more than 0-20. Can one person really drag an entire team down, and force them to the edges of the map, cowering behind islands? For most of my time I was around 51%, but the last 6 months have been binge losing streaks. There definitely was stupidity that I am doing, such as when I was going for PeF/Exeter missions in Random instead of Coop, but I am not talking about those matches here. Regarding the T8 issue, uptiering takes the fun out of T8 ships, it would seem like 90% lately are in w/ T10s. Do you get more points as a low tier in an up tiered match? If so, that would be more fair, if not they need to make that happen. Then maybe make it an option so those wanting the added challenge can be rewarded for it.
  12. SuperComm4


    Lyon has been my favorite French BB, and one of my top 3 ships so far. I love the number of guns. You just can’t go op degree broadside to your enemies and expect to survive, it’s not built for it. It is mobile and can really frustrate the enemy, I am not a very good player but was over 60% for a long time in that ship. Then came the silly free ship contests and my massive losing streaks... Lyon is a blast to play!
  13. SuperComm4

    Intro Videos

    For me the videos disappeared with an update probably 3 or 4 updates ago. I too enjoyed the videos and wonder why they removed them.
  14. SuperComm4

    Atago B doubloon missions not working

    I am definitely happy with Tirpitz and Atago. The black scheme is pretty cool. I did see the above line about these being unique ships, and the above poster hit it on the head: This more than any deception is what got me. That being said: why was it necessary to release an identical ship and call it a "B" in the first place. That in and of itself is a bit odd. Does Wargaming really feel the need to hit premium ship buyers twice for the same ship? Apparently so. I justify purchasing ships like this because I want to support Wargaming and the fine job I feel they do. Many of us are that way, so give us a reasonable excuse to support and we will. But if it is even on the line of shadiness or deceptive, Wargaming is best advised to avoid it. Would someone interested in buying a Tirpitz finally buy it if it was offered in black? Yes, I did. But why does it have to be a different Tirpitz? If someone already has Tirpitz, it should have been "you get the value of the ship, 9k dbloons plus the black camo and an extra 2500 dbloons". Much cleaner. Besides, if WG wants to leverage those who already bought premiums, offer something else new, like Stalingrad as an actual premium instead of a 750k free xp ship. It just seems like a needless controversy that risks creating ire amongst loyal fans. Personally, I still love the game, but I fully understand others frustrations with this and hope WG pulls back from marketing that comes across as too much.
  15. SuperComm4

    Steam Version login question

    Self reply should anyone else see a similar problem: I figured out this issue. Steam creates a "steam_api.dll" file when you first log into WoWS. Once this is created the login screen is bypassed and you go to your designated server/account. This file is found under Steam Library> SteamApps> Common>World of Warships. By changing the name of this (I used "2steam_api.dll") the game seems to launch with the option to login to the server of choice, username etc. I hope this is helpful for anyone should they encounter a similar issue as I did. Also, please advise if I am missing anything here.